Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

I inform the House that nothing in the Lords Message engages Commons financial privilege. Before Clause 138 Statement and bringing forward of a draft Bill: copyright infringement, AI models, and transparency over inputs

13:56:00

I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 49F and proposes, in lieu of the Lords Amendment, amendment (a) to Commons amendment 45, amendments (b), (c) and (d) to Commons amendment 46 and amendment (e) to the Bill. I fear it is an inevitable aspect of ping-pong that there is a degree of repetitiveness about our proceedings. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), said last week that it reminded him of the film “Groundhog Day”, but that refers to the Pennsylvania Dutch superstition that if a groundhog emerges from its burrow on 2 February and sees its own shadow, it will retreat to its den and winter will go on for six more weeks. Well, I can see my shadow and I just hope that ping-pong is not going to continue for another six weeks. Last week, I covered some misconceptions about the contents of the Bill and what we are trying to achieve separately in relation to artificial intelligence and copyright. I fear that some of those misconceptions persist. The Guardian carried the following sentence this weekend: “The AI Bill, which proposes allowing‬ tech companies to use copyrighted material, has suffered‬ a fifth defeat in the Lords.” That was repeated by one of the presenters on the “Today” programme, who stated that the Bill allows AI companies to use copyright material. I am glad the “Today” programme has apologised and corrected‬ the record. Let me reiterate: this is not an AI Bill and it does not propose changing copyright in any regard whatsoever. If the Bill goes forward in the way proposed by the Government, there will be no diminution in the robustness of the UK copyright regime. Sometimes I want to say, in the words of Richard II, “you have mistook us all this while.” ‬‬

I accept what he said at the start of his speech, but the industry is desperate: its intellectual property is being stolen day by day, and the Minister does understand that it wants a timeline and a vehicle. I hope he will confirm that the Government are going to bring one forward.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not going to do that. He also knows that the enforcement of copyright law is not a matter for Government because it is not the Government who enforce it. I have the enforcement regulations in my hand. Chapter VI of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 makes it very clear that infringement is actionable by copyright owners. In common with many bits of the law and with statute law in the UK, enforcement is not normally by Government. It is by either the prosecuting authorities or by people taking a civil action. Those are the measures that exist in copyright law today and we are not changing them in a single regard. Having said all that, I acknowledge the strong feelings expressed in both Houses about the need to protect the intellectual property rights of 2.4 million people who work in the creative industries in this country, including the significant proportion of the creative industries represented by the tech industries, which this week are celebrating London Tech Week. It must be said that their lordships have been persistent, so much so that they remind me of a poem by Robert Browning, “A Toccata of Galuppi’s”, about the 18th century Venetian composer Baldassare Galuppi. It uses several musical terms, such as the dominant, and includes the line: “Hark, the dominant’s persistence till it must be answered to!” The Lords have been persistent, which is why we have not just listened to them; we have heard them, and we are answering them. Although the Bill, which was drafted largely by the previous Government, did not originally refer to the matter of copyright at all, that is why at a previous stage we tabled specific requirements on the Government to produce an economic impact assessment of the options available to us and to report on key issues, including transparency, technical solutions, access to data and copyright licensing within 12 months. In response to their lordships, we are going several steps further. First, we are adding two further reporting requirements on approaches to models trained overseas and on how transparency and other requirements should be enforced. Secondly, in response to the call for us to work faster—meeting the point just made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith)—we will deliver the economic impact assessment and reports within nine months, rather than 12 months. Thirdly, we are introducing a new requirement that the Secretary of State make a progress statement to Parliament about the documents within six months of Royal Assent.

The Minister is being generous, as always, in giving way. I welcome the amendments—I think they are helpful and useful—but they miss out and exclude transparency, which is what this is all about. The Lords, the creative sector and artists around this country want a commitment that this Government will deal with issues of transparency. Why will the Minister not sit down and compromise with the House of Lords and ensure that we get a solution that works for everybody?

In the end, the single most important compromise will be between the AI sector and the creative industries sector. That is the bit that we need to negotiate over the next few months. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the idea of simply putting one part of the jigsaw into this Bill. The truth is that if we are going to get to a proper compromise solution, it will require all the bits of the jigsaw to be put together into a comprehensive picture. That means that we need to go through a proper process. The last time we discussed these things, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) referred to the noble Lord Peter Mandelson and amendments that he thought were tabled to deal with Napster in the Digital Economy Act 2010. Because I had some spare time over the weekend, I read all the debates on that Act in 2010, and we went through a process to get to that Act: we produced a White Paper and then legislation, which went through both Houses. It was introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Mandelson and in the House of Commons by Ben Bradshaw. In fact, most of that Act was so controversial that in the end, it was never implemented by the Government who took over in 2010, and large chunks of the Act were taken out when it collided with the 2010 general election. I am not sure that things were quite as the hon. Gentleman thought at the time, but the key point is that we need to go through a proper process of bringing forward conciliation in this area. That means introducing legislation once we have considered the responses to the consultation, bringing forward our economic impact assessments, considering all the different aspects that really matter to the creative industries and the tech companies, and then considering legislation. I want to do that as fast as we possibly can, because I want to get to a solution for all of this problem. The Government have tabled amendments to put these commitments in the Bill. The amendments were initially tabled in the other place, but they were not voted on by peers, who instead insisted on the amendment that we disagreed to last Tuesday—in fact, as I understand it, the amendments were not moved. They show our commitment to ensuring considered and effective solutions, as I have outlined, and demonstrate that we have unequivocally heard the concerns about timing and accountability. We need to do one other piece of work. The House already knows that we will bring together working groups to consider transparency and technical solutions. They will have AI and creative industry representatives on them and will be extra-parliamentary.

I thank the Minister for being so generous with his time. On that point, will he outline how the Government will decide which parliamentarians will be on the advisory group and how they will be chosen?

I am about to come to that—my hon. Friend has a faster timeline than I have. There is of course expertise in Parliament, which is why I commit today that the Government will convene a series of meetings to keep interested parliamentarians informed on progress on this important issue, so that we can benefit from their input as we develop our thinking before any formal proposals are brought back to Parliament. The working group meetings will include a cross-party group of Members, made up of MPs and peers. We hope that the group can act as an informal sounding board, but it is not intended to replicate or replace the normal scrutiny role of established bodies, such as Select Committees. I see that the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), is in her dutiful place as usual; I would not dream of seeking to tell her Committee what to do or how to conduct its business, but we would none the less like to be able to draw on its members and their expertise.

Will the Minister give way?

I thought that might happen.

Late on Friday night—after hours and to an unmonitored inbox—emails suggesting that approach were sent to the Chairs of the two relevant Select Committees: the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. That was the first that had been heard of it. An all-colleague email went round on Saturday morning. This seems to be rather hurried, breathless and not very courteous to the House. The Minister has written two very respected books about Parliament, and I am sure that he did not intend disrespect, but we need to be clear that scrutiny is done through Select Committees and that policymaking is a separate thing. Combining the two is not really appropriate.

I completely agree with the last point that my hon. Friend makes. Scrutiny of Government legislation through the proper processes in either this House or the other House—or through Select Committees, for that matter, which do it in a slightly different way—is one thing, and the business of developing policy is another. I completely apologise for the inadvertent sending of the email to the wrong address and all the rest of it. We are simply trying to engage as many Members in this House and the other House as we possibly can, on a matter that clearly matters to a great number of Members of Parliament because of their constituents. That includes my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who I know has a very large creative community in her own constituency. We want to involve as many people as we possibly can. We may be moving faster on occasions than people want, but sometimes the demand is that we move faster. I apologise for the inadvertent discourtesy, but we are simply trying to engage as many people in the future debate as we possibly can.

Will the Minister give way?

Before I do, I will say that because my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch is the Chair of the Liaison Committee, I wonder if it would be useful if she and I met in the next few days with the Chairs of the two most relevant Committees to discuss precisely what shape all that should take and what would be useful and informative, rather than doing anything that might undermine the process.

The Minister partly answered my question as he went along there. My thought on the group is that it is really important that we get creative voices into the room to have that conversation. Once the group is formed, will part of its remit be to invite members of the creative industry in to discuss their concerns and how we can work together to solve them?

Order. Before the Minister responds, I remind him that we have only an hour for the whole debate. We have four Back Benchers wishing to contribute.

I feel told off, Madam Deputy Speaker, but thank you very much. I have been told off for talking too long, for talking too short, for going too fast and for going too slow. My point is that we are already committed to creating two working groups that will look at transparency and at technical solutions to the problems that we face. Both of them will have members of the creative industries and members of tech and AI companies engaged in them. In addition, we want to have a separate group of Members of this House and the other House who are engaged with and have an interest in the subject to help us to develop these policy areas. I think it is best to keep those separate, and that is the plan. As we know, the Secretary of State has already written to the Chairs of the relevant Select Committees, but I hope that what I have just said is helpful.

I see that I am getting a slight nod from the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee about the prospect of our meeting to sort out a way forward on that. I will say a few words about ping-pong. Some peers have suggested that different rules apply because the Bill started in the Lords. That is simply not true. Double insistence would kill the Bill wherever the Bill had started, and I take people at their word when they say that they do not want to kill the Bill. It has important measures that will enable digital verification services, the national underground asset register and smart data schemes to grow the economy; that will save NHS time; that will make vital amendments to our policing laws; and that will support the completion of the EU’s adequacy review. Its provisions have the support of all parties in both Houses, which is why I urge this House to accept our amendments in lieu and urge the Lords not to insist on their amendment but to agree with us. It is worth pointing out that if their lordships do persist, they are not just delaying and imperilling a Bill that all parties agree is an important and necessary piece of legislation; they are imperilling something of much greater significance and importance economically: our data adequacy with the European Union. The successful renewal of our EU adequacy decisions is predicated on us having settled law as soon as possible, and we will not have that until the Bill gains Royal Assent. I cannot overemphasise how important this is, and I am absolutely mystified as to why the Liberal Democrats—of all parties—would want to imperil that. I am equally mystified by the position of the Conservative party. They tabled amendments in the Commons Committee and Report stages that are almost exactly mirrored by what we have already added to the Bill and are adding today. I very much hope therefore that the Conservative party will agree to our motion. It is not as if it disagrees with any of the measures in the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness Kidron, who said in the Lords, “I want to make it absolutely clear that, whatever transpires today, I will accept the choice the Government make.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 755.] It was a point she reiterated later in the debate when she said, “if we” —that is, the Lords— “choose to vote on this and successfully pass it, I will accept anything that the Commons does… I will not stand in front of your Lordships again and press our case.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 773.] The noble Baroness is right. In the end, only one House is elected; only one House constitutes the Government of the day; and, especially where a Bill was adumbrated in a general election as this one was, the unelected House treads carefully. That is all the more important when the governing party has barely a fifth of the members of the other House. We have listened to the other House and taken action. There may be disagreements about the measures we have taken, but it would be wrong to say that we have not listened. It is time for the Houses to agree that the Bill must go forward. I will say one final word about creativity. We live in an exceptional age. When our parents were young, they were lucky if their family had a television or a record player. They might occasionally go to a gig, concert or play. If they did have a television, they had a choice of just two or three channels. By contrast, today we are surrounded by human creativity in a way that no other generation was. Technology has brought us multiple channels where we can pick and choose whatever we want, whenever we want to see it. We watch more drama than ever. We can listen to our own choice of music on the train, on the bus or in the car. We can play games online with friends on the other side of the world. More books are published than ever. We can read or listen to them. Almost twice as many people went to the theatre last year as went to a premier league match. There are many challenges, all of which we need to address, including that of the interaction of AI with human creativity, but creativity is a quintessence of our humanity. It requires human-to-human connection, and I do not think for a single instant that that will change.

I call the shadow Minister.

It feels like we are going from “Groundhog Day” to “Lost in Translation” because the Government clearly are not getting the message. Today I will try something different and tell the House a story—the story of this debate: A story was read in the deep dark wood, AI saw the book, and the book looked good. “Where are you heading to, original tome? Come here with me, and I’ll give you a home.” “That’s awfully sweet of you, but no, I’m meeting my author, and they say where I go. Now I like you, and I don’t want to cause strife But they made me with love and words shaped by life. So if we’re to partner, please do ask them first, To not would be naughty,” he said with lips pursed. Perhaps I owe Julia Donaldson an apology, while also thanking her for the national treasure that is “The Gruffalo”—I look forward to the third book in the series. We did not use AI, which was useless, to draft it, just the skills of one of my team members Jacqui Gracey—human skill, talent and transparency over sources and work. Transparency is fundamental to protect creative endeavours. No one can doubt that the Minister has done his best to demonstrate the enduring nature of the creative spirit in the face of adversity and to avoid committing to a timescale and to legislating on transparency. This week, it is a new parliamentary working group. Last week, it was reviews. Next week, it may even be a citizens’ assembly, but the creative industries are not buying it. Our noble colleagues in the other place are not buying it. Members of Opposition parties, and indeed some Members on his own Benches, are not buying it. They are not buying it because the Government have lost the confidence of their stakeholders that they would bring forward legislation to enact effective and proportionate transparency requirements for AI models in the use of their creative content—AI companies need to buy it. It is this loss of confidence in the Government’s will to take decisive action that means that nothing short of a commitment to bring forward legislation will be enough to allay the fears of the creative industries.

14:15:00

I thank the hon. Member for his creativity in his speech. The heart of the debate is whether creatives are asked before we steal their material or style, but also that they are remunerated for that. That is a commitment we have heard from the Minister and from the Secretary of State in his media performances on the weekend. This problem predates this year. It dates back to stuff being stolen over a considerable number of years. Why did the last Government not take any initiative to ensure that creatives receive their just rewards for their creativity?

What the last Government did not do is release a consultation that had a ministerial foreword to say that the position of copyright was uncertain. What they did not do was say their preferred option was opt-out, which spooked the creative industry and caused all these problems in the first place. It is this Government’s ham-fisted approach that caused so many of the problems that they are now trying and failing to fix. The Government have played a large part in creating this problem.

I am not going to let the hon. Gentleman get away with that. The last Government did not do anything on this issue, basically because they did not understand what was going on, and the little they did understand about some of the threats from AI, they did not care. As he asked the Labour Benches to do yesterday, the hon. Gentleman should apologise for the last Government’s inaction over the past few years because a lot of this is down to them.

Will the hon. Member give way?

Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady should allow the hon. Member to respond to the first intervention before he takes a second.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I said, this is clearly a tricky area to legislate—I have said that at the Dispatch Box and in Committee many times—but what is not helping is the uncertainty that has been created throughout the debate, whether it is the position of copyright law, preferred third options or the status of opt-out, which is how we got into this pickle in the first place.

There seems to be mass amnesia breaking out across the Chamber because the last Government did do something on this: they set up a working group between AI companies and the creative industries.

They cancelled it.

No, the AI companies walked away. We are almost at risk of recreating history by this Government wanting to set up exactly the same working group and thinking that by doing the same thing again, the outcome will somehow be different.

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, who is also trying to break us out of the groundhog day that we seem to have found ourselves in. The Lords amendment does not fetter the Government’s policy options, nor does it prescribe how proportionate transparency should be achieved. It simply puts a line in the sand for the Government to act on this hugely important issue. To return to the AI and the Gruffalo, So on went the story through the deep dark wood To be loved by its readers, as a good book should. Yet the AI pondered, as it wanted it now. “I’ll simply just scrape it”, the AI did avow. When he was musing, he stumbled across The author reclining on a patch of green moss. They had glasses and notebooks and ideas galore. They had printed five books, but were working on more. Their eyes came to meet—they were in for a fight. Both wanted the story, but who was right? The answer is both, if reasonably sought For content, not stolen, but licensed or bought. Be clear what you’re taking, be transparent and true, And recognise the content and its real value. Then there’s no monster nor bad guy, just an allegorical rhyme And a plea to listen and take action in time.

I hope that the shadow Minister sought permission to misappropriate Julia Donaldson’s wonderful work. It is hardly an example that any of us should follow. We are back here again. I put on record my thanks to Government Front Benchers for their engagement on this issue. It was particularly welcome to see the Secretary of State, in his appearance on “Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg”, take such a human approach to recognising the concern that exists in the creative industries and give a commitment to the nation about the seriousness of what comes from this place. I also welcome the Minister’s comments that the creative and tech sectors will be involved in the next phase of this work, because that is essential. However, I would like to stress two further points. First, that involvement must reflect the breadth of the creative industries, from music and publishing to games, film and beyond—the necessary mix of expertise. That means the creative sector rights holders and business affairs professionals being involved, alongside the tech experts who understand the complexities of data flows, metadata structures, and the practicalities of any opt-out system or tech solution that is to be developed, notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s clarification that the Government no longer have a preferred position. We look forward to the consultation and its findings being open and transparent, because while all the creative sectors share in the value of copyright as a principle that is tech and sector neutral, the way that commercial licensing models develop in practice will differ, and it is not for the Government to second-guess that. That is not a problem; in fact, it is a good thing. The emergence of bespoke commercial partnerships is precisely how the Government can achieve their objective of driving effective licensing, but to get there, we need sector-specific insight and specialist input, not a one-size-fits-all approach. I welcome the commitment to include Back Benchers, stakeholders and leaders of industry. Crucially, the Government must consult and liaise with all of us on the formation of these groups, including their terms of reference—this cannot be presented again as a fait accompli. Too often, we hear of officials thinking or mulling things over, but not sharing what those thoughts are or what the implications of their latest thought could be. With the best will in the world, they cannot know the business as clearly as industry does. I believe that the prospects for both industries have improved as a result of this ping-pong process and the arguments we have been having, both in this House and in the other place.

My hon. Friend says that the prospects for both industries have improved. I have spoken in this place about my previous role as a screenwriter—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—and this week, the British Film Institute reported that AI threatens the British film industry, with over 130,000 scripts having been plundered. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we fail to take this opportunity to deal with transparency and put powers to legislate on the face of the Bill, we will be leaving screenwriters and other creatives high and dry until we legislate in the future?

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which as ever is rooted in the first-hand experience and professional success that brought her to this place. She should be listened to, and her warnings about the implications of not taking transparency seriously should be heeded. Secondly, I will return to a subject that I have raised before, because it warrants more scrutiny. That is the recurring suggestion that copyright is out of date. On the one hand, we have heard the Government talk about copyright being clear and well established, and of course we agree with that. Only this weekend, the Government clarified again that if no licence or permission is in place, that is theft or piracy. That clarity is precisely what gives rights holders the confidence, control and legal basis to license their works, which the Government also rightly want to encourage. However, in the same spirit, we sense that the Government still feel that copyright somehow needs to be reformed or ignored. I ask the Minister to take what I hope is the last opportunity during this process to indicate exactly what reform is being proposed, and what it will achieve that copyright does not already do, because the creative industry believes copyright to be best in class as a respected and enforceable measure. If the answer is transparency, personality rights, or anything that sits around copyright rather than within it, let us call that what it is, but can we please avoid vagueness, constructive ambiguity, and language that sets hares running or undermines confidence in what is frankly a best-in-class system? Finally, if the Government are still entertaining the idea that the stability of UK copyright law could be weakened in pursuit of an idea of innovation, many will feel that the shift in tone and position in recent weeks —which has been deeply welcome—has been counter-productive, and they will be left concerned.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I would like to either disappoint or reassure the House that, sadly, I do not have a story for Members today. I will dive straight into the amendments that are before us. Just three months. After all the discussions and the cries for fairness from the creative industries, which have seen the daylight robbery of their life’s work, the Government are sending back an amendment that, in essence, changes the economic assessment from 12 months to nine months, with a progress statement and some expansion. I understand that this is the data Bill, and that this legislation contains many important elements relating to the future of our data, which we must secure. In response to the point made by the Minister, I absolutely understand the importance of securing data adequacy with the European Union. However, the creative industry is at a critical juncture with AI. Many feel that it is already too late, but they are doing what they can, fighting for transparency and fairness for a £126 billion UK industry. The Creators’ Rights Alliance has already started to see the impact for creators. 58% of members of the Association of Photographers have lost commissioned work to generative AI services, with an increase of 21% in the past five months alone, totalling an average loss of £14,400 per professional photographer—approximately £43 million in total. Some 32% of illustrators report losing work to AI, with an average loss of £9,262 per affected UK creator. There is an uncomfortable truth that economic gains from AI—of which I am sure there will be many—will also be met with economic losses that must be addressed. Indeed, at Old Street tube station, there are signs everywhere at the moment saying “Stop hiring humans.” Some 77% of authors do not know whether their work has been used to train AI, 71% are concerned about AI mimicking their style without consent, and 65% of fiction writers and 57% of non-fiction writers believe that AI will negatively impact their future earnings. At this point, the creative industry feels betrayed, and is asking for solutions. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s statements this weekend. He talked about looking comprehensively at the challenges creatives will face into the future and about bringing legislation in at the right time, but that time is now. Last week’s Lords amendment 49F highlighted that the Lords understood the need for separate legislation and asked for a draft Bill looking at copyright infringement, AI and transparency about inputs, which is something that creatives have been clear about from the start. I have always highlighted the positive impacts of technology and innovation, and I have no doubt that creatives will also use AI to aid their creativity. However, from musicians to film makers and photographers to writers and painters, the works of this massive industry have been swallowed up, and creatives are left wondering what that means for them—especially as they are already starting to see the impact. In my constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted I see the creative spirit everywhere. There is: Open Door, a caring oasis with walls covered by local artists; the Harpenden Photographic Society, established more than 80 years ago, where generations have learned to capture light and moment through their lens; the Berkhamsted art society, where painters and craftspeople gather to nurture each other’s artistic journey; and the Berkhamsted Jazz group, who get us up and dancing. These creators are the threads that weave the rich tapestry of British culture, and the creative industries permeate our towns, including the filming of box office hits such as “Guardians of the Galaxy” and “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” at Ashridge. Who will be the guardians of this creative galaxy? Why does this theft feel a little less heroic than Robin Hood?

14:30:00

What is more, AI is also a business opportunity. Having spoken to the UK industry and businesses actively seeking to adopt AI solutions, they are also looking for transparency for their due diligence. BT serves around 1 million small business customers, and it sees a big opportunity to better serve them with AI solutions, but it says that transparency would help them do so with confidence. With the working groups with creatives and AI, we should also bring in the wider industry to unlock the opportunities.

From businesses to creators, the Bill should be seen as an opportunity for the economy. Creators are asking for something reasonable: partnership, not appropriation. They want to be asked, not simply taken from. As we all vote today, I urge Members to keep that in mind. It is a bittersweet irony that this week in Parliament there is a display celebrating the art of Parliament. There are more than 10,000 pieces of work in the archives, from Adebanji Alade to Céline Baumann. They tell the story of our democracy, culture and country. I was struck by one of the latest acquisitions, “The Magic Hour” by Katharine LiBretto. It is a bewitching screenprint that has the silhouette of Parliament. I hope that now is that magic hour, when the Government can find a way forward to value creatives and set a new path for the future.

I draw the attention of the House to my being the founder of Labour: Women in Tech and the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on financial technology, and to my career in data and technology prior to becoming an MP. I welcome the Government’s new approach to innovate and expedite the process and to leverage the expertise of both Houses and key stakeholders. I thank them for their work on that. Just under a month ago, the UK hosted FinTech Week and the global fintech forum, where businesses and Government leaders from around the world came to participate in critical conversations about the importance of the trusted global financial services ecosystem for the physical and digital worlds. Attendance was so senior and strong because after the global financial crisis the UK had to move quickly to a new model, and hence fintech was born. A lot of great work was done in this space by the Conservatives when they were in government, even if they could not get their act together over AI and keep the attention of AI companies. Government regulators, incumbents, entrepreneurs and investors worked together with alacrity to create an ecosystem that led the world into fintech. We created tens of thousands of new jobs, brought in tens of millions in inward investment and created more than 20 billion-dollar companies. We are in the middle of London Tech Week, which is happening a few miles away at Olympia and was attended by the Prime Minister. There is a technology challenge in the creative industries that needs addressing now, which is why it is great to hear the news today. This is an emergency, and the emergence of AI in recent times has created opportunity and new threats for creatives, who rightly worry that their work is often appropriated by AI without reward or recognition. However, we can be a pioneer in this field, developing trusted solutions that protect creatives and set the standards that others will follow. We have demonstrated our ability to do that in the past with fintech, in which the UK holds a 10% global market share. The UK’s secret sauce is a unique blend of not just our brilliant talent, light-touch regulation, common business language and soft power, but our common law, which is used by other countries. We are an exemplar. Other countries look to us to lead the way. A crisis is at the door, but we have an opportunity to be on the front foot, ahead of other countries experiencing the same challenges and watching us closely. This country always steps up in times of crisis. The UK can and must take a leading position on the fair use of AI in the creative industries and help to protect our creatives and their work, which are rightly celebrated across the world. Engagement with global players in the ecosystem is important, but we should also be far more focused on the UK’s home-grown talent and inventive mindset to solve the biggest puzzles. We can move quickly when we need to, and my message to the Secretary of State and to this House is that we really need to, and have to.

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

First, I thank the Secretary of State for sending our Committee a letter on Friday evening setting out the Government’s intentions for AI and copyright. Reflecting what the Chair of the Liaison Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), said, both the nature of the letter and the method with which it was received were almost symbolic of how this whole process has been conducted from beginning to end. It was fairly haphazard and chaotic, and it was not entirely clear what the Secretary of State or the Minister intend to happen next, but I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to have a chat to talk us through it. Specifically, the Secretary of State and the Minister set out their amendments to the Bill and a plan to set up this parliamentary working group, and we would like to know a lot more about that. I understand exactly what the Government are trying to do: they are trying to placate peers and bring the Data (Use and Access) Bill to a conclusion, as the Minister says. The problem is that they are still not engaging with the fundamental existential issue, which is the concerns expressed by people across the creative industries. The Government’s amendment would expedite the economic impact assessment of the options in the AI copyright consultation. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee jointly wrote about that in February. Another amendment would expand the scope of the report to include training outside the UK and enforcement, which obviously should have happened from the start. The amendments are all welcome, but they miss the point of the creative industries’ concern that their work and intellectual property are being exploited wholesale, without permission, without payment and without practical means of recourse and redress. I note that the Minister told the House on 14 May: “I do not think that what is on the amendment paper today would deliver anything now.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 417.] The Government giving themselves nine months rather than 12 to conclude what we already know—that their favoured consultation option is completely unworkable—is much less likely to deliver quickly the kind of transparency and enforcement for creators than the amendments proposed in the other place. The Secretary of State’s letter also mentions that the Government intend to set up a parliamentary working group to ensure that “Parliament has a voice directly into DSIT throughout this process”. The big fear is that this working group will simply be a channel through which the Government will report back on their own engagement with AI developers and rights holders. The Government instead need to be listening to the concerns of Parliament and industry stakeholders. Maybe then they will realise that this stakeholder engagement exercise between rights holders and AI developers has been tried before, as I said earlier, including in the last Parliament. It was scrutinised at the time by the Committee I chair, and each time things have got nowhere. Talks have collapsed because the status quo suits rogue developers acting in bad faith. They think they have nothing to lose by looting the work and value of our creators and our rights holders. If the Government press on with this working group, we will of course engage and do what we can to support, but let us call it what it is: a distraction technique to divert attention away from the fact that the Government have got themselves into a terrible pickle over this legislation. They started a consultation on AI and copyright when they already had stated a preferred outcome, and they have been cloth-eared to the legitimate concerns of the world-leading creative industries for month after month. They have been virtually dragged kicking and screaming to this position now, where they bring forward a couple of tiny amendments. They have been gaslighting Members of all parties and at both ends of this building who have attempted to draw attention to the situation. They have been somehow pitting our world-leading creative industries against AI, almost presenting them as luddites who are allergic to innovation and technology, when actually these are some of the most groundbreaking and innovative sectors out there. They are using AI every single day to produce world-beating pieces of creative content. The very nature of how the Government have conducted this legislation pits our creative industries against AI, and that is deeply unfair. It is all not good enough. This is simply a thinly veiled attempt to kick the can down the road—and if kicking the can down the road were an Olympic sport, the Minister would have to add “sport” to his portfolio. If he thinks that any of us are fooled by this, or that it will quieten those who want to stand up for our world-leading creative industries and against the existential threat that they face, he has another think coming.

Order. We have a hard stop at 2.56 pm, and I know that the Minister will wish, with the leave of the House, to respond to some of the questions that have been asked. Mr Wishart, you have several minutes, but please do not go all the way to 2.56 pm.

I am extremely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will not detain the House, as I have just a few comments to make. Let me begin by saying that it is an absolute pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). I had my criticisms of the previous Government, but they did not extend to her. She was someone who understood the issues, and someone who was prepared to try to find a solution. Whereas the previous Government were appalling in the way they dealt with these matters, she at least made every effort, through the work of her Committee, to get to the heart of the debate. This has been an extraordinary episode, and I cannot believe that we are back here for the fifth time. The issues are usually resolved and dealt with in circumstances such as this, and a meaningful compromise is reached between the Lords and the Commons, but that has failed to materialise during what has been a remarkable session of ping-pong. The whole episode has been as interesting and dynamic as it has been entertaining. The Minister and I were elected at the same time—I think we celebrated our 24th year of continuous membership of the House over the weekend. I am sure he will agree that he has never seen anything quite like the way in which we have reached this stage, but if he can give an example to the contrary, I shall be keen to hear it—I know that, given his almost photographic memory, he would be able to provide the details. What disturbs me is the Government’s failure to attempt to secure some sort of meaningful compromise. Their inability to do that is quite baffling. I am trying to think of a few ways in which we might get round this. It might be an idea to get the Secretary of State and Elton John in the same room and lock the door: perhaps when the two of them emerged, we might be able to come up with some sort of solution. We are in the realms of trying to find a way forward, and that might be one way in which we could do so. By refusing to listen to the strong view of the Lords and respect the convention that ping-pong is a process at the end of which a workable compromise generally appears, the Government risk undermining their own legislative process. Having looked at the Lords amendment again, and having listened carefully to the debate the other day, I cannot see anything wrong with an amendment that simply asks for a draft Bill containing provisions “to provide transparency to copyright owners regarding the use of their copyright works as data inputs for AI models”. I thought that was what we were all trying to achieve, and I am surprised at the Government’s intransigent resistance to a fairly modest attempt to find solutions. I have looked at the Government amendments as well, and I welcome them. As I have said to the Minister, the one that excites me most involves this House, parliamentary resources and the ability to play a meaningful part in these matters. I hope that he will be able to extend that to all parties across the House.

Even to you.

I am thrilled and excited by the prospect of being part of that work, and I look forward to joining the Minister, but I think that it must be as open as possible so that every single aspect of this can be harnessed and used as part of the Government’s work. What the Government amendments do not do, however—and this is a key issue—is pay attention to the transparency issues. The peers have rejected amendments that the Government have tabled previously. As the Chair of the Select Committee said, the Government are bringing these amendments back to try to distract us and give us the impression that they listened to the House of Lords and were near to reaching a compromise, but nothing of the sort is the case, because the key issue is the transparency that the House of Lords, the creative sector and artists across the UK want to see. The existing law should be enforced to protect the wages of 2.4 million creative workers, and the Government must produce a “meaningful compromise” amendment. It is also entirely possible for the Government to take powers to introduce transparency via regulations, recognising the urgent need to prevent mass theft by AI firms at the earliest opportunity, and I do not know why they have not explored that option. The wages of those 2.4 million UK creators are at stake, as is the principle of the rule of law. The creative industries have made it clear that inaction on the Government’s part is giving “big tech” the freedom to break our laws and destroy jobs. Copyright is not an abstract concept; it is what secures our creative success. The Government will win in this House today, and they will probably win the whole debate—they will get their way. However, they have lost the battle. One good thing that has come out of this is the fact that people now understand that our copyright laws—our gold-standard copyright regime—underpins the success of the UK’s creative industries across the board. Some of the greatest artists in the world are from these islands, and they have achieved their success because of intellectual property rights and our copyright laws. To muck about with those as we have over the past few months undermines all that, and undermines the ability of those artists to continue to lead in their sectors. I hope that, even at this late stage, some sort of compromise can be found with transparency at the heart of it, and I appeal to the Minister to consider that seriously.

14:45:00

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a few comments, because it is important to respond to some of the questions that have been asked. Two of my hon. Friends referred to the report that the BFI published yesterday. I warmly commend it to all Members, not least because it makes points that others have made about AI, but also because it makes the point that if films and high-end television in the UK are to be successful in the future, we cannot have this critical shortfall in AI education, which is entirely piecemeal at the moment. We know about that in the Department, and it is one of the things that we want to change. Several Members have asked who will be involved in the various different groups. I want to draw on all the expertise in both Houses to ensure that we can find the right answers. I do not want to undermine anything that the Select Committees might do, jointly or separately, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), I am keen for all the parts of the creative industries to engage in this process. The difficulty is that we might end up with a very large roundtable, and people might have to bear with us when it comes to how we structure that.

Will the Minister give way?

Okay, although my hon. Friend was not here earlier.

I apologise for not being here earlier. I commend the Government for engaging in a cross-party discussion about AI, which is what the country needs to do, but the key issue is ensuring from the beginning that the tech companies understand that transparency in copyright and AI is not a “nice to have” but an absolute requirement, and that if they will not deliver it, the Minister will.

We have said from the very beginning that transparency is absolutely key to our ability to deliver the package that we would like to put together, and I do not resile from that, but it is only one part of the jigsaw that we need to join up. I point out to the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) that some of the items on the amendment paper are things that the two Select Committees asked us to do. She is normally more generous to me, and to others, than she has been today. She has clearly forgotten that the last Government introduced plans that would have produced a text and data mining exemption for commercial exploitation of copyrighted materials without any additional protections for the creative industries. That seems to have slipped her mind. We have moved a great deal since the introduction of the Bill. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology—who is sitting beside me—and I have moved. We have listened to their lordships, and, more importantly, we have listened to what the creative industries have had to say. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) asked me whether I had ever known anything like this situation. Other bills have gone to five rounds of ping-pong, but in the past the row has always been about what is in the Bill, not what is not in the Bill. This is not an AI Bill, and it will not change the copyright regime in this country. I want that regime to be as robust as it ever has been, so that those in the creative industries can be remunerated and earn a living, as they deserve to. That is precisely what we intend to achieve, but we want to get the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. That is why I need the House to vote with us this afternoon, and I hope that their lordships will agree with us tomorrow. Question put.

219|14:49|304|189|The House divided:|Question accordingly agreed to.||0|0

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 49F and proposes, in lieu of the Lords amendment, amendment (a) to Commons amendment 45, amendments (b), (c) and (d) to Commons amendment 46 and amendment (e) to the Bill.