Artificial Intelligence: Creative Content

Question

11:19:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential value of the global market for creative content from the United Kingdom for use in training artificial intelligence models.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group.

The Government recognise the significant global value of UK creative content in AI development. As part of the AI Opportunities Action Plan, we are exploring how to unlock this value and ensure that creators and rights holders are properly rewarded. We support industry-led licensing models and are considering next steps following the consultation on copyright and AI to ensure that the UK’s copyright framework remains fit for the AI era.

Does the Minister agree that for AI businesses to flourish here they need access to our world-class content—which will only be produced if content creators have effective copyright protection? This House recognised that on Monday during the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill. It is deeply disappointing to learn that, rather than act decisively to give creators transparency, as we voted for—holding AI firms accountable for copyright theft, seeing deals struck and allowing the UK to play that leading role in the global AI supply chain—the Government are manipulating parliamentary procedure arrogantly to dismiss our views. Is it now the Government’s extraordinary position that, if it costs money to enforce the law, we must just let criminals get away with theft? I reject that and will be backing the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, if she brings it back next Monday. This House must hold firm.

My Lords, I think the Government should hold firm, in fact. As noble Lords will be well aware, the principle of financial privilege is used frequently by the Commons, as is its right. It was used frequently by the previous Government and has been used a number of times by this Government. This country fought a civil war over taxes and the primacy of the Commons. It is not for this House to criticise the other place for using financial privilege as a reason to reject an amendment.

My Lords, as we have heard, yesterday in the other place the Government used procedure rather than policy to overturn amendments that could have turbocharged a lucrative market for AI training data, on the premise that the data Bill is not the right vehicle to protect copyright works. What steps are the Government taking right now to enforce the law, which the Minister in the other place was at great pains to explain remains in place until further notice? What timeline has the Minister been given for another Bill that may or may not include the transparency to see what is being stolen? If theft at this scale was happening in pharma, finance, aerospace or the tech sector—which protects its patents so fiercely—would the Government stand by and suggest that the cost of regulation was too great to stop a multi-billion-pound industry from being plundered?

As the Government have signalled clearly, we recognise that transparency and getting this right is a key element required to improve the situation for creators, but we simply do not believe that this Bill is the right vehicle to put these measures into law. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, were well intentioned but have not taken into account the work that needs to be done before we put measures into statute. We want to get this right and for AI to work for everyone. Our aim is to provide certainty and deliver shared growth for our UK creative and AI sectors through a copyright regime that provides creators with real control and transparency and helps them to license their content while supporting AI developers’ lawful access to high-quality material.

My Lords, if the Government cannot accept the amendments to the Bill, is it not incumbent upon the Government to give a clear indication that ensuring that transparency is real and available is an absolute priority in the coming months? It is too late if we have to wait for primary legislation some years down the line to enforce copyright by having the correct amount of transparency. What reassurance can the Minister give noble Lords that transparency will be top of the agenda going forward?

As I made clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, we recognise that transparency is a key element required to improve the situation for creators. We ran a 10-week consultation on the impact of AI on the copyright regime. It received over 11,500 responses, mainly from creators. Our genuine aim is to provide certainty for UK creative and AI sectors. I will not apologise for the Government making sure that we get this right and not wanting to use a Bill that is currently going through Parliament.

My Lords, on the value of creative content, the US Copyright Office, in its very recently published report, concludes that: “The copying involved in AI training threatens significant potential harm to the market for or value of copyrighted works”. In relation to an opt-out approach, it says that such an approach “is inconsistent with the basic principle that consent is required for uses within the scope of their statutory rights”. If the Minister will not listen to the noble Lord, Lord Black, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and many in your Lordships’ House, will she at least listen to our US partners?

My Lords, I am listening; I just do not agree with the noble Lords on the points that they have made. We are looking to make sure that we get this regime right. We will look at all the responses to the very wide-ranging consultation that received, as I mentioned previously, over 11,500 responses, mainly from creators.

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. As a former newspaper editor, I pay tribute briefly to one of the most outstanding journalists of our generation, who we have just heard has died, Andrew Norfolk. Your Lordships will all know his name from his investigation into the evil of grooming gangs, which must never be forgotten. Newspapers really do matter, and we must protect investigative journalism. I am sure that Andrew Norfolk would be cheering from the galleries to hear that statement: we must protect investigative journalism. Do the Government recognise that, for generative AI to thrive in the UK, AI models with a huge appetite for content will need the creative sector, including newspapers, to continue producing high-quality work? If so, why not give the creators the transparency that is necessary to enforce their rights and negotiate deals with AI firms, as we inserted into the data Bill on Monday?

I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness in her tribute to Andrew Norfolk and on the power of investigative journalism. It is important for us to remember that creative industries are already using AI technologies—38% of creative industry businesses have already used AI technologies, with nearly 50% using AI to improve business operations. I use that as an example to make it clear that this is not an issue of the AI tech giants versus creative industries; it must be about both and about getting the regime right so that we can deliver—and protect our creative industries through the regime that we will bring forward following consideration of the consultation.

My Lords, if the Government feel that our relationship with the American tech companies is so important for the country’s financial stability that they cannot introduce protective legislation for the creative industries, then they must be honest and say so. They must not treat the public like fools.

My Lords, I am not treating anybody like a fool, and nor are the Government. We want to get this right and to make AI work for everyone. We are 100% clear that creatives and the creative sector should be properly rewarded. We need to get it right. While I understand that noble Lords want to use the vehicle of the legislation that is going through the House currently to lever in procedure, process and policy now, we want to get this right. We will revert to Parliament in due course on the result of the consultation.

My Lords, on Monday your Lordships’ House voted by a majority of nearly 150 to stand up for the rights and intellectual property of people working in our creative industries. The Minister will have heard the great dismay from across your Lordships’ House about the way the Creative Industries Minister in another place is hiding behind parliamentary procedure to drag his feet while this theft continues from our creative businesses. Does she think this is an acceptable way to treat not just this House of Parliament but the creative businesses which contribute more to our economy than the automotive, aerospace, life sciences and oil and gas sectors combined? Will she please take this frustration back to her colleagues and urge them to engage more faithfully before the Bill returns to your Lordships’ House on Monday?

My Lords, I cannot emphasise enough that all Lords in your Lordships’ House need to respect the primacy of the Commons in relation to financial privilege.

Oh!

Noble Lords may disagree with me on that point, but it would be very wrong of this House to reject a principle—it is not a procedure or a procedural tool, but a principle—that the Commons has financial primacy. We genuinely want our creative industries and AI companies to flourish, which is why we have been separately consulting on a package of measures that we hope and intend will work for both sectors. These are interrelating issues; it is not one sector or another. We have always been clear that we will not rush into any decisions or bring forward any legislation until we are confident that we have a practical plan that delivers on each of our objectives.