Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Commons Amendments

19:32:00

My Lords, before we consider the Commons message on the data Bill, I again remind the House of the importance of applying greater discipline to ping-pong. We have now spent nearly 44 hours debating this Bill as a whole, including nine and a half hours on the last four rounds of ping-pong. This means that over 20% of the total time spent on the Bill has been on ping-pong alone. The remaining issue is entirely known to Peers and the arguments have been rehearsed at length. I ask noble Lords to minimise contributions and keep any interventions brief and to the point. I have asked the Whip to continue to monitor the House and keep it on track. Thank you. Motion A

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 49F and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 49P, 49Q, 49R, 49S and 49T in lieu.

49P: Line 3, leave out “12” and insert “9”

49Q: Line 3, leave out “12” and insert “9”

49R: Line 31, at end insert— “(e) ways of enforcing requirements and restrictions relating to— (i) the use of copyright works to develop AI systems, and (ii) the accessing of copyright works for that purpose (for example, by web crawlers), including enforcement by a regulator.”

49S: Line 31, at end insert— “(3A) The consideration and proposals under each of paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (3) must include consideration of, and proposals relating to, AI systems developed outside the United Kingdom.”

49T: After Clause 134, insert the following new Clause— “Progress statement (1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement setting out what progress has been made towards the publication of— (a) the economic impact assessment required by section (Economic impact assessment), and (b) the report required by section (Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems). (2) The duty in subsection (1) does not apply where the economic impact assessment and the report have been published before the end of the period described in that subsection.”

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motion A1. I will keep my opening remarks brief. The Government have been clear throughout the Bill’s passage that we need to properly analyse the 11,500 consultation responses before we consider bringing forward legislative change relating to AI and copyright. For that reason, the amendments in lieu, passed by the other place, are the same as the government amendments previously tabled in this House. I understand that this is a source of disappointment to some noble Lords, but it is not fair to say—as some have outside of your Lordships’ House—that the Government have in any way been unclear about their intentions, or misled or disrespected noble Lords. I turn to the new Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton. I understand and share his desire for a quick and effective solution. I thank him for the productive and helpful meeting we had ahead of this debate. I recognise that people have not been reassured entirely so far, which is unfortunate. I want to give the House the same undertaking I gave the noble Lord: we will work as hard as possible on this issue. I can reassure him, and your Lordships, that our plan will give copyright holders as much protection and support as possible, including via transparency, enforcement and renumeration, while not pre-empting the outcomes of the important and necessary processes that we have set out and without pre-judging any future legislation. We want to ensure that we uphold our gold standard copyright regime while also adapting to the new challenges. I look forward to working with the noble Lord as part of the parliamentary working group on this issue. In the meantime, I urge noble Lords to accept the Government’s Motion and the amendments in lieu. That is the best way to finally pass the data Bill, with the compromises the Government have made to address this issue as quickly as possible. This will speed up our work, make it more comprehensive and provide Parliament with a meaningful update within six months —a clock that only starts ticking once this Bill has passed. These steps increase engagement and accountability, but without pre-judging or pre-empting the consultation to which so many took the time to respond. In my most recent all-Peers letter, I was pleased to share details of the cross-party parliamentary working group that DSIT is establishing to support our next steps. I take this opportunity to reassure those already on the relevant Select Committees that this group will not in any way replace or dilute their core work. Minister Bryant confirmed yesterday that we will meet with relevant Select Committee chairs in both Houses to discuss how this new group can complement existing mechanisms. I will provide an update to your Lordships’ House on the formation and progress of the working group as soon as I am able to. Lastly, I thank Members of your Lordships’ House for their contributions to the debates on the Bill during its passage. I look forward to hearing their contributions on other matters once the Bill has passed. I beg to move. Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

Leave out from “49F” to end and insert “, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 49P, 49Q, 49R, 49S and 49T and do propose Amendment 49U as an amendment in lieu of Commons Amendments 49P, 49Q, 49R, 49S and 49T—

49U: Before Clause 138, insert the following new Clause— “Disclosure of use and accessing of copyright works in AI training After section 21 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (infringement by making adaptation or act done in relation to adaptation) insert— “21A Disclosure of use and accessing of copyright works in AI training (1) A person who uses copyright works in the training of an artificial intelligence (AI) model for the purposes of a service with links to the United Kingdom within the meaning of subsection (2) shall make publicly available a statement identifying the copyright works used, and the means by which those works were accessed. (2) The service has links with the United Kingdom if— (a) it has a significant number of UK users, or (b) United Kingdom users form one of the target markets for the service (or the only target market). (3) The requirement in subsection (1) shall not apply where the rights holder has granted a licence to the person using the copyright works. (4) In this section, “training” means the pre-training, training, fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation of an AI model, or any other point at which a data input is made to an AI model.”””

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Kidron has been inspiring during the passage of the Bill. She has inspired me to take up the cudgels on behalf of our creative industries: writers, painters, filmmakers, newspapers and composers. Indeed, almost every aspect of life today is underwritten by somebody’s good idea. I believe all sides of the House agree that they should benefit from, and own, that creativity. Noble Lords who have written a novel or an article, created a picture or produced a film will know what it is like to feel ownership of their ideas, and how they would feel if they were purloined. I declare my interest as a composer. I do not want to divide the House, but if there is no meaningful response from the Government I will have no choice. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I told your Lordships’ House last week that we did not want to collapse—to use the Minister’s phrase—the data Bill. Indeed, we are not playing ping-pong with Amendment 49. Rather, and in return, we are seeking a beneficial relationship with the Government. After all, many of the ideas going into AI were initially developed by the creative industries, which, like the Government, want to be at the forefront of what is to come in AI: things that are impossible to imagine and that will, I have no doubt, take our breath away. Peter Kyle in the other place said that he did not want to deal with these issues piecemeal, but we know from experience that not putting in protection at an early stage can lead to the tail wagging the dog. Streaming would be a perfect example. In enacting new law, surely there is a duty to build in transparency in order that we can safeguard the copyright that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has promised will remain in place. However, for the creatives themselves to be able to enforce that copyright, they need to know who is using—and possibly stealing—their work. If you do not know that theft is occurring, you cannot do much about it. So, I am going to take a slightly different tack today. My amendment amends the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, making copyright law enforceable by requiring AI firms to make a public statement about their use of copyright works and the means by which they access those works. However, AI firms would not be required to disclose the use of copyright works if they have agreed a licence with the rights holder—which seems only fair. This removes burdens for ethical AI firms while also acting as a strong incentive to abide by copyright law. The data used in AI training is now the key point of competitive advantage for AI firms—far more so than a model’s algorithms or architecture. Therefore, the requirement will give AI firms a strong incentive to license creative comment and avoid public disclosure. For those AI firms that persist in theft of copyright, holders will be able to identify their stolen content in the public disclosures and seek redress. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act is enforceable via private action, as the Minister himself set out in the other place yesterday. So, this amendment is intended to respect the financial primacy of the Commons. In fact, yesterday, Minister Bryant—perhaps without realising—did away with the financial privilege argument by saying, correctly, that it was not the job of government to pursue breaches of copyright. That is why the creators need transparency, so that they can do the policing that is not—I agree with Chris Bryant—the Government’s job. I say to the Government—now, after all, led by a musician, a flautist, and how welcome it was to find that we have a musician at the helm—that we feel that the traffic so far has all been one way. However, the essence of creativity, as the PM must know, whether on the stage or the concert hall, whether in research and development studios or the laboratory, is the ability to listen and to exchange ideas. That is how curiosity and intelligence come together to create a better world that respects the ideas of our creators, whether it be Elton John—just think how much he and his colleagues have brought in to the Treasury—or, as he said himself, the young, impoverished artist sitting in a garret and bursting with the great ideas that just may be the next thing to take the world by storm. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to the Government’s Motion A. The timing of this debate and the pretence that these are in any meaningful sense amendments in lieu are more process and nonsense. I will leave other noble Lords to reflect on the Government’s stunning rebuke of your Lordships’ House, but to the Minister I say that it is disrespectful to millions of people to bring back amendments as if they had not been resoundingly rejected already. I explicitly left the protection of the property and livelihood of millions of British workers, the UK AI industry and the UK’s creative and IP-rich companies in the Government’s hands. Despite actively acknowledging that creative work is being stolen at scale, the Government chose once again to remove transparency provisions your Lordships provided, allowing the tech sector to continue to rob the creative industries blind. It is as cynical as it is bewildering.

19:45:00

The Government have squandered their credibility by using assurances and warm words, while refusing every attempt of your Lordships’ House to provide emergency amendments, in favour of their so-called “comprehensive solution” that will take years to deliver. The Lords amendments were interim measures for an industry crying out for immediate help, but the Government have aggressively removed any and all protections. I say to the Government, “Actions speak louder than words and we have heard you”.

We heard the Secretary of State on Sunday talk about analogue copyright for the digital age, we heard him say copyright was “unfit for purpose”, and yesterday we heard Minister Bryant say the

“single most important compromise”

was going to be

“between the AI sector and the creative industries”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/6/25; col. 836.]

Ministers may have rowed back from their ill-fated opt-out preference, but they are unrepentant in their plans to weaken copyright law.

Many noble Lords will recall a letter to the Prime Minister signed by over 400 UK creators, several dozen of whom have paid more in tax than Google or Amazon ever have, and all of whom have contributed to the UK economy and the cultural life of the nation. They include Tom Stoppard, Helen Fielding, Rachel Whiteread, Antony Gormley, Simon Rattle, Sting, Paul McCartney, Elton, Shirley Bassey and Dua Lipa, alongside institutions from Glyndebourne to the Sheffield Crucible and the editors of almost all our national newspapers. These are the creators and keepers of the national legacy and culture, but the Prime Minister did not spare time, nor even a piece of headed notepaper, to reply, but instead bounced their concerns back to the very department whose policy they were asking him to overrule.

Yet this weekend, the Prime Minister hosted big tech at Chequers, and again for dinner at Downing Street last night. Let us be utterly clear: it is right that the Government meet with all sorts of sector leaders. However, there was not so much as a note for the icons of the UK’s second-biggest industrial sector, while the US tech billionaires and their proxies have access to Ministers and the Prime Minister on tap.

During the course of our debates, I have spoken to AI academics, more than one Nobel laureate, UK AI companies and many who have or currently work at Google, Snap, Meta, Stability AI, TikTok and Google DeepMind. Unlike those that cluster in a feeding frenzy around government, they are collectively incredulous that a country with such valuable data would give it away without a fight. As one said at the weekend, “Of course we prefer it for free, but if you don’t protect your IP, we will take it just like we did your high street”.

Warm words about being fair and balanced do not cut it. The Government have stood in the way of attempts to stop one sector building its products on the labour of another without permission or payment. We will shortly see celebratory announcements of inward investment, shiny new AI zones, data centres and several thousand jobs. I am all for inward investment and I am all for new jobs—indeed, I am all in for AI—but, while the Government say it is “premature” to give transparency to prevent our work being stolen, they are sacrificing UK businesses to invest our future and our tax receipts in AI, in advance of any economic assessment and without any analysis of to whom the money will go. It is economically illiterate and morally and culturally indefensible.

Ping-pong has been a disaster, not because the Government used their massive majority to overturn our modest amendments, but because it has revealed a Government entrapped by the shiny promises of tech lobbyists who cannot now find a path out. If they cannot negotiate a compromise with noble Lords, what chance do they have with the global tech sector?

Labour’s pre-election manifesto promised to put creativity back at the centre of our lives, but its EU reset did not sort out touring; there is nothing in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill about arts or culture, even though they contribute disproportionately to children’s well-being; there is nothing in the workers’ rights Bill for freelance workers; and there is a real-terms cut today for DCMS. Despite an explicit promise in the Government’s cultural manifesto to protect copyright, they are actively standing in the way of 2.4 million workers who are on their knees begging for transparency.

“Sad, frustrated and angry” does not even begin to express the contents of my in-box in the last 24 hours, and it is inexplicable to most that a Labour Government would prevent creative workers getting a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labour. Ministers and Members of the other place take their wages and holiday pay and build up their pension pots, but they have blithely walked through the Lobby to give away creators’ wages, creators’ sick pay and creators’ pensions—not just to anyone, but to the most capitalised companies in history. Creators are not unwilling to bargain or to license; they want to work with AI and to be part of building the new future. They are not stupid, but they are very worried that the Government are, because Ministers appear not to understand that our creative industries are valuable—valuable to their owners, valuable to the public purse and valuable to the future of AI.

Ministers say, “Better to wait; better to have no legislative vehicle; better to stand by while our property and livelihood is stolen right now; better to have no timeline.” However, the Government’s “better” is the enemy of the creative industries’ “best”, which was to have their elected representatives represent them. By ruthlessly standing in the way of transparency, the Government have put a spotlight on their every move. Every favour to the tech sector, every public appointment of a tech bro, every nomination to their working group, every announcement of inward investment with a corresponding tax break will be scrutinised by the UK businesses they have just thrown under the bus. There were nuanced routes and cleverer negotiating tactics with UK innovators and creatives at the helm, but the Government made the extraordinary choice to be bullied by billionaires. They will not stop at copyright: those very same companies have their eyes on the NHS, on our security data, on education, on geospatial data.

Finally, paragraph 1(c) of Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 states that everyone has the right to

“benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is author”.

It is a basic, universal entitlement; it does not need to be asserted or claimed. By overruling our protections, the Government have set themselves unequivocally on a path of conflict with the law. It may not be Parliament, but the courts, who decide the principle of this case; and it may not be the tech companies, but the Government, who are responsible for the loss of income to the individuals and companies that make up the creative industry in whose way they have stood.

The data Bill was not the constitutional crisis falsely proclaimed by Ministers: it was an opportunity. The Government have five times stood in the way of that opportunity. Actions speak louder than words, and the sound of government action is deafening. The Government have been disingenuous, and I commend the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his speech, for putting forward his important and proportionate amendment—it was very inventive, I must admit—and for being uncowed in his defence of the creative industries.

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I rise to support the noble Lord’s Motion A1. I declare my interest as per the register. It is with deep sadness that, once again, I am speaking on this issue, which continues to feel like a horror movie—a bad dream in which creators are being victimised. Just yesterday, a friend of mine in the advertising industry told me that his sector will be wiped out by AI in under five years, due to loss of revenue. The same can be said of numerous other creative sectors. This is morally wrong. The Government have promised not to introduce an exception without proof of an effective opt-out mechanism, but there is no effective system available for this. Such technologies are far from being developed, and they do not even work conceptually. A transparency-first approach to AI is essential. AI developers should be required to keep accurate records of all the training material they use and the web crawlers they employ. This is critical to ensuring that creators can identify when their works have been used for AI training, potentially without their consent. Although everything that needs to be said about this woeful and sad situation has already been eloquently and passionately expressed in this Chamber by noble Lords from across the House—especially the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—for the sake of clarity, I would like to ask the following questions, so that it is absolutely clear to the many thousands of people in the creative industries exactly where the Government stand on this issue: taking their lifeblood. Do the Government accept that the creative industries need transparency and assurances before considering changes to copyright law, and, if so, why not prioritise it now? Do the Government believe it acceptable to ignore theft in the creative industries when such inaction would be unthinkable in sectors such as retail and manufacturing? Do the Government agree that creatives are working people and should be fairly paid for their labour? If so, how do the Government expect this to happen without transparency for AI training? How do the Government intend to ensure that AI companies receive high-quality content to train on if creatives are not being paid for their work by AI companies? They are doing it for nothing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these important questions. It is unprecedented for a UK Government to weaken intellectual property laws for British citizens and businesses, to the advantage of large overseas corporations. We should think about that. It risks undermining confidence in the whole creative sector, which plays a crucial role in the Government’s industrial strategy and the UK’s soft power. The whole of the industry urges and pleads with the Government to prioritise the long-term sustainability of the British creative sector over short-term benefits for AI developers, and to put an end to this unbelievable AI nightmare.

My Lords, I have kept my contributions to a minimum during ping-pong, and I will do so again today. However, I must voice my frustration at hearing the Government, here and in the other place, oppose our calls for transparency about AI training data by saying that a data Bill is not the place for it, and that they want to consider transparency about training data as part of their consultation on copyright. Meanwhile, they also say that “transparency is absolutely key to our ability to deliver the package that we would like to put together”,—[Official Report, Commons, 10/6/25; col. 850.] despite refusing to accept any timetable for delivering this fundamental aspect. Until we have transparency over the use of data, data owners—copyright holders—cannot use the existing copyright laws to bring cases around current violations of those laws. The longer the situation goes on, the harder it will be for data owners—copyright holders—to bring legal cases. There is an urgent need here, and there is an opportunity to address it in this Bill.

20:00:00

It is completely inexplicable that our Government— I say that as a subject—appear to be blocking this opportunity for us all to have a means to use the existing copyright law, with no cogent explanation as to why and no attempts to compromise on this single vital point. Unless the Government can give a reason as to why they do not want people in this country to use this country’s current copyright law against AI companies that have breached it—some transparency, we might say—I will continue to support amendments to try to give people that facility.

My Lords, I think I am right in saying that it is approximately 25 years since I joined this House, so perhaps I have been here too long, but I do not recall any occasion when ping- pong has been done in the dinner-break hour. I sympathise with the complaint that the Government Chief Whip made about the amount of precious parliamentary time that has been spent on ping-pong; I do not know how long it has been exactly, but it must be more than eight hours. Anyone listening to any of the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, could not fail to be impressed by her arguments. It is extraordinary that the House of Commons has been so tone-deaf and tin-eared to those arguments. That is why we have spent so long on this and why we are here now. I am conscious that my Chief Whip is in her place and, understandably, we are whipped on the issue of principle that we do not challenge the House of Commons over and again. However, I argue that that depends on the other place actually showing respect for this place and the arguments put here. It has not done so. I feel sorry for the Minister—she is unable to do anything because of the view that has been taken in the other place—but, frankly, to keep coming back, saying the same thing over again and expecting things to change is an act of political madness. I do not understand the politics of this. The Government are alienating some of their traditional key supporters. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has come forward with an ingenious amendment to continue the process. I suspect that many of my colleagues are thinking, “Do we really want to extend this?” I am sorry that more noble Lords were not present to hear the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. It is devastating in its impact, and what the Government are doing is devastating because of the implications. The noble Lord said that he was delighted that there were now musicians in the Government. Well, we must have a few pipers, because he who pays the piper calls the tune. The fact that, as the noble Baroness said, the Prime Minister entertained at Chequers over the weekend the people who want to put their hands in the pockets of our most creative and productive people, without any opportunity to make recompense, is pretty extraordinary. I say to the Government Chief Whip that we have reached this position because of the Government’s recalcitrance and the foolish way this has been handled. I am sure that I speak for many noble Lords in saying that even a modest concession would have prevented us getting into this continuing ping-pong position. It just will not do. To put it in the dinner hour—many people might think that the dinner break is limited to an hour but we can go on for as long as we like, although I think we might upset a number of our colleagues if we did so—is just not right. I suspect that the Government Chief Whip might say, “Oh, well, I thought there weren’t going to be any more amendments”. I say in response: I thought that at the very least, after such substantial defeats, there would be some give. There is a big principle here, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, touched on at the end of her speech. Today it is the creative industries, but what will they come for next? They will come for our health data. Where will they be on the protections for our children, for which we fought so hard and on which the noble Baroness played such a leading role? Will we really go all the way with these big crony capitalists—that is what we are seeing now in the United States—at the expense of some of our most precious industries and values? That is why, if the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, presses this matter to a vote, I will go through the Lobby in support of his Motion, feeling that I should not have been driven to that position by a Government who show no proper respect to this House or its arguments. It is not enough for them to have a majority and to do anything they like; that is the road that the previous Viscount Hailsham described as leading to elective dictatorship in a democracy. The elective dictatorship is looking to those who have substantial financial means instead of the interests of the people of our country.

I support the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I declare my interest as an artist member of DACS. It is no secret that Governments have built AI policy around the views of those with the deepest vested interests: companies whose business models rely on opacity. The noble Lord’s amendment is modest, but it is a line in the sand. If we want a fair digital economy, we must start by listening not only to shareholders and Silicon Valley lobbyists but to creators, researchers and small businesses. Transparency is not a threat to innovation; it is the precondition for accountability. I will explain the reasons behind that. First, this amendment aligns perfectly with established IP disclosure requirements. Under Regulation 16 of the collective rights management regulations, copyright users must already provide information to collecting societies about works used. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would simply extend this proven principle to AI companies to ensure they disclose what copyright works they use in training. This would create consistency across our IP regime, rather than carve out special exemptions for big tech. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has already said, the amendment involves no financial burden on the Government. Finally, disclosures benefit everyone, including AI companies themselves. When both rights holders and AI developers can see what works have been used, they can properly assess whether legitimate exceptions exist under copyright laws and whether they apply. This legal clarity reduces litigation risks and encourages proper licensing arrangements. I hope that the House will support this amendment.

My Lords, like many others, I am extremely sad to see that we have reached this stage. Sadly, I was unable to attend the other stages of ping-pong, so I feel that I need to add my support to the extraordinary work that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has done on the Bill. She has achieved something that, certainly in my short 10 years here, is very rare: real unanimity across all sides of this House that we are engaged in doing something that is very wrong. I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Like my noble friend Lord Forsyth, I too will support him if he chooses to divide the House. I offer noble Lords one small crumb of comfort. We are united, across all sides of this House, in saying that we need to sort this out. We keep being told that AI will change everything, which, I am afraid, means that we will discuss this during debates on every Bill. There will be an opportunity to do that, and we will prevail in the end. This House has faced these dilemmas with technology transformation before, and I am determined that I will not, in my lifetime, participate in the protection of an industry in the name of economic growth, when what we are actually doing is destroying society and people’s lives. It is very sad that it took 100 years for seat belts to become mandatory in the back seats of cars after the seat belt was invented. I feel confident that after the passage of the Bill, it will not take that long for us to protect the precious copyright of the British creative industries. We will keep fighting even if we lose.

My Lords, there is another little problem, pointed out to me by a senior member of a publishing company, World Wide Publishing. It has a lot of research material and things for students, as well as books and things such as that. At the moment, if the AI comes to take it, it is probably going to use the fair use or the small excerpt exception, because that protects it. When it falls back, it is quite possible that the copyright holders could have a claim against the publishers. If they start ganging together and going for the publishers, we are possibly going to see bankruptcies among some of the big publishers, that publish and hold all our research material that is so valuable. I am not thinking about the arts thing as much, but we need to worry about that because that could destroy a lot of useful information for our future.

My Lords, of course the Government have the right to do what they intend to do, but that does not make the Government right to do what they intend to do. As a mark of our cross-party determination, we have pushed this in this House up to the limit—some would argue, perhaps, beyond—but the Government have ignored us because the Government know best. We have amassed extraordinary majorities in this House that have delivered warning after warning, but the Government have not listened or budged because the Government know best. I follow up on the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, about Downing Street. It was not so long ago that the door of Downing Street would be thrown open wide and Government Ministers would go down on their grazed knees to welcome the likes of Elton John, Paul McCartney, Dua Lipa, Sir Ian McKellen, Ed Sheeran, Richard Curtis and thousands of others. All those thousands have spoken out in anger about what the Government intend to do. But in response, there has been nothing. The official record is stuck in the groove: the Government know best. The US Vice-President has spoken openly about what he wants from the UK on copyright, but the Government assure us that no word or whisper has been exchanged with anyone in the White House and that this plan to do away with our copyright protection has been all their own thinking—bless them. I am sure this Government really do know best. Creative people are people of passion, they are remorseless and have the ability to reach out to millions of ordinary people. Those who live, work, toil, sweat and go through their working lives and retirements relying on their copyright—2.4 million of them and their families and their friends—with the dreams of what they still might do and the sweet memories of what they have already done. I suspect they will not forget what is being done, which I know is silly and misguided of them because, as we know, the Government know best. Ministers could have given just a little, and they would have gained such a lot. Perhaps it is still not too late, and there is something to admire in the Government’s determination to turn their back on the cheap applause that is so readily available, were they to do so. Forgive me, but in this instance, I shall leave any expression of admiration to others. It is not so much a horror movie; it is more like “The Charge of the Light Brigade”. We have been participating in that charge—a most noble, historic and important endeavour. The guns have spoken in their heedless way. I think Lord Tennyson would have written some very fine verse in praise of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and all the tenacity and principled effort she has shown, with all the others, including the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, this evening. We ride on.

20:15:00

My Lords, I address my comments to the Government Benches, particularly the Government Front Bench. If one looks at Commons Hansard from yesterday, from the last round of ping-pong, several things stand out. First, although we have been through many rounds of ping-pong, yesterday was the first time ever in ping-pong that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, was named and acknowledged. This is the same noble Baroness who was accused by a spokesman for the department of trying to bully the Government because she is an activist. This was the first time that the Front Bench mentioned the noble Baroness’s name, which I find extraordinary and slightly disrespectful. Secondly, yesterday, Sir Chris Bryant, who was obviously on fine form, managed to annoy no fewer than three chairs of Commons Select Committees. He managed to annoy Dame Meg Hillier, who is the chair of the Treasury Select Committee and the Liaison Committee, by the lastminute.com manner in which the department suddenly landed the culture and science Select Committees with this idea of a parliamentary liaison group with no prior warning whatever—they and the House more broadly knew absolutely nothing about it until an email went out early on Saturday morning. This is not the way to manage this issue. Certain Back-Benchers on the Government side have spoken during the course of ping-pong to make clear their discomfort and the uncomfortable position they are put in between their loyalty to their party and Government and their clear concern about the manner in which the Ministers involved are currently managing this process. I would just like to encourage all members of the governing party to try—and if anything I have said or that we have heard here rings a bell with them—to please find a way of getting the message through so they understand that it is not simply we who are not members of the governing party who are concerned, but that noble Lords and Members of another place are also deeply concerned. Frankly, we want and expect a change of attitude and pace, much greater focus and a much clearer demonstration to all these people who are so concerned about their future and their livelihood that the Government are on their side, are on the case, and will defend them in any way they can.

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. We should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for the very gracious way he introduced his amendment, particularly given the history of this inter-House discussion. Whether it is betrayal, disrespect, negligence, bloody-mindedness, a bad dream or tone-deafness, whatever the reality, we find ourselves once again in this Chamber debating an issue that should have been settled long ago. I share the profound anger and frustration expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and admire her unwavering determination, even if she, for very honourable reasons, will not be voting today. As she pointed out, the Prime Minister, who entertained the tech industry at Chequers and Downing Street, is complicit in the situation we are in today. We are here today because the Government have point-blank refused to move, repeatedly presenting the same proposition on three occasions while this House, by contrast, has put forward a series of genuine solutions in an attempt to find a way forward, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, pointed out. The only new element seems to be a promise of a cross-party parliamentary working party, but what is so enticing about merely more talking when action is desperately needed? Amendment 49U, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and designed to amend the 1988 copyright Act, is a reasoned compromise. It requires identifying the copyrighted works and the means by which they were accessed, unless the developer has obtained a licence. That seems to be a fair trade-off. The noble Lord also pointed out that Minister Bryant has rather inadvertently made it clear that today’s amendment does not invoke financial privilege on this occasion. The Government argue that legislating piecemeal would be problematic, but the historical precedent of the Napster clause in the Digital Economy Act 2010 demonstrates that Parliament can and should take powers to act when a sector is facing an existential threat. There is an exact parallel with where we are today. This is not about picking a side between AI and creativity, as we have heard across the House today. It is about ensuring that both can thrive through fair collaboration based on consent and compensation. We must ensure that the incentive remains for the next generation of creators and innovators. Given how Ministers have behaved in the face of the strength of feeling of the creative industries, how can anyone in those industries trust this Government and these Ministers ever again? Will they trust their instincts to appease big tech? I suspect not. I do not regard the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, as personally liable in this respect, but I hope she feels ashamed of her colleagues in the Commons, of the behaviour of her department and of her Government. In this House we will not forget. There is still time for the Government to listen, to act and to secure a future where human creativity is not plundered but valued and protected. If the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, chooses to put this to a vote, on these Benches we will support him to the hilt. I urge all noble Lords from all Benches, if he does put it to a vote, to support the UK creative industries once again.

My Lords, as everybody has said, it is deeply disappointing that we once again find ourselves in this position. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has brought the concerns of copyright owners to the attention of the Government time and again. Throughout the progress of the Bill, the Government have declined to respond to the substance of those concerns and to engage with them properly. As I said in the previous round of ping-pong—I am starting to lose count—the uncertainty of the continued delay to this Bill is hurting all sides. Even businesses that are in industries far removed from concerns about AI and copyright are waiting for the data Bill. It has been delayed because of the Government’s frankly stubborn mismanagement of the Bill. I understand completely why the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, feels sufficiently strongly about how the Government have acted to move his very inventive amendment. It strikes at the heart of how this Government should be treating your Lordships’ House. If Ministers hope to get their business through your Lordships’ House in good order, they will rely on this House trusting them and collaborating with them. I know that these decisions are often made by the Secretary of State. I have the highest respect for the Minister, but this is a situation of the Government’s making. I note in passing that it was very disappointing to read that the Government’s planned AI Bill will now be delayed by at least a year. All that said, as the Official Opposition we have maintained our position, as ping-pong has progressed, that protracted rounds of disagreement between the other place and your Lordships’ House should be avoided. This situation could have been avoided if the Government had acted in good faith and sought compromise.

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I repeat again our absolute commitment to the creative sector and our intention to work with it to help it flourish and grow. This is London Tech Week. All Ministers, including me and my colleagues, have been involved in that, showcasing the UK’s rising tech talent to the world. I do not feel I should apologise for our involvement with the tech sector in that regard.

Perhaps the Minister could note that I said that of course they should be meeting. It was the fact that the creative industries did not get a response that was at issue here.

I apologise to the creative sector if it did not get a response. I can follow that up, but I was responding to a different point made by other people casting aspersions about our ministerial involvement with this sector, which is an important sector for our economy. It is clear that several noble Lords still have concerns about the Government’s plan. I understand their concerns, even if I do not share them—just as I am sure that they understand our concerns with the proposed alternatives, even if they do not share them. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that it is a matter of fact that the Bill does not change, weaken or block anything in copyright law. We believe in transparency, protection and enforcement, and we agree with remuneration. This is our task ahead. But the Government’s firm view remains that we cannot prejudge the consultation, the technical or parliamentary working groups or the proposals resulting from these that will be brought forward in our report.

I understand the Minister’s point about not wanting to prejudge the consultation—although on other issues, such as VAT on school fees, that did not seem to apply. What I have difficulty with is why the Government were not prepared to take a power that would enable them to act at a subsequent date and does not require them to do so.

My Lords, this is because we believe the powers we already have are sufficient to enable us to enact the regulations once we have finished the piece of work we are working on. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his speech, and repeat my assurances in response to his ask. Our plans will give copyright holders as much protection as possible via transparency, enforcement and remuneration. Our report, nine months from Royal Assent, will contain our proposals to put this in place. The Government are also looking at the case for more comprehensive AI legislation that delivers on our manifesto commitment. I expect any comprehensive legislation to address the opportunities and challenges presented by AI to the creative sector. I turn now to concerns that the Government have not compromised on this issue. Noble Lords are right that we have deep concerns about pre-empting all the work that is necessary to determine what future laws should contain. It is an important principle that good government consults, respects the responses and then sets out its proposals. I expect any comprehensive legislation that follows—to address the opportunities and challenges presented by the AI sector—to encompass those principles. However, I want to remind noble Lords of everything I am referring to when I say that the Government have compromised. The Government have compromised on the consultation with the Secretary of State, recognising concerns about the preferred option and the lack of an impact assessment, and by introducing a report that will set out proposals and which will be accompanied by a full impact assessment. The Government have also compromised on the process. The reports will be brought forward even more quickly, with more topics included in them, and there will be a progress statement, and technical and parliamentary working groups will now be set up to complement this process. I press my point to noble Lords: the Government have compromised many times on many issues, but where we cannot compromise is on one of the principles of good government: namely, that we cannot prejudge the outcome of these processes.

20:30:00

Lastly, I want to thank noble Lords for their contributions today, but I must once again ask your Lordships to respect the primacy of the other place, which has voted five times against these amendments in this space, and to support the government Motion. If noble Lords choose to vote for the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the Government will again, of course, have to offer an amendment in lieu. I say this now for complete transparency: I do not want noble Lords to vote today based on something that will turn out to be false a week later.

We will, of course, continue to consult to help shape our ultimate proposals, but noble Lords should not think that the substance of the Government’s position will be any different next time we are here. We have a clear plan to address the issue and we will act on it as rapidly as we possibly can. But continuing to oppose the settled view of the elected Chamber is not the constitutional role of this revising Chamber.

In the meantime, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has listened to what I have said. I hope that he will agree not to press his amendment, and we look forward to the opportunity to continue working with him.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. I will come back to that in a moment. First, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, once again for so passionately embracing this issue on behalf of creative people. She has done a remarkable job. Noble Lords on both sides of the House will know that I have attacked both Governments over music for children in schools and over artists touring. There is lots of work to be done. I say to noble Lords on the Front Bench that many of the noble Baroness’s comments need to be taken seriously and there is a great deal of progress that could be made. When I discovered that a flautist was going to be Prime Minister, I was very hopeful—and I still am—that we can make progress in these areas, because we really need to. It is not just for today’s musicians; it is for the musicians of tomorrow, as Elton John said. These will be the people who will be creating works of art in the future. I said to the Minister in our meeting that the problem with the Government’s position is that, once AI and big tech companies start trawling, we cannot get it back. This is exactly what we saw with streaming. It is a slippery slope and that is why we are all so passionate. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was absolutely right in saying that this, with the greatest respect, is something the Government have brought on themselves, because they are possibly so far into the bed of AI and tech companies that they have no position to manoeuvre. That is very much the feeling I get. If this Motion is at all ingenious, I owe a great debt of gratitude to the Public Bill Office for helping me work it out. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, who is a perfect example of somebody who has written a book—House of Cards—and seen it put on to television and become enormously successful both in this country and in America. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who always speaks very wisely on these subjects, especially on copyright, about which he probably knows more than most of us. Many noble Lords have spoken; I do not want to go through a long list. But I did take my cue at the end from the beginning. We heard that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is not inclined to vote tonight. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that he would come through the Lobby with me, for which I am enormously grateful, but it is tricky. There are lots of noble Lords on the government Benches who I know feel very torn by this. I do not really want to put them through that again. I want to show the other place that we can act with dignity in this Chamber and make our point, as noble Lords have done on so many occasions and by such huge majorities. That is a huge tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and what she has brought forward. On that note, I have decided on this occasion that enough probably is enough. I think we have made our point. I do so hope the Government will listen. I trust them to listen and to improve matters as far as the creatives are concerned. We can only do so much here. I believe we have done it. It is up to the Government and the other place now to listen. I beg to withdraw the amendment.

Motion A1 withdrawn.

Motion A agreed.