Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Report (2nd Day)

16:18:00

Clause 90: Duties of the Commissioner in carrying out functions

Amendment 38

Moved by

38: Clause 90, page 113, line 15, at end insert “in accordance only with the Commissioner’s duties under section 108 of the Deregulation Act 2015 (exercise of regulatory functions: economic growth).” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment ensures that the Commissioner’s duty to have regard to the desirability of promoting innovation is referable only to the duty imposed under section 108 of the Deregulation Act 2015. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Commissioner’s status as an independent supervisory authority for data protection is preserved given that such status is an essential component of any EU adequacy decision.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open the second day on Report on the Data (Use and Access) Bill. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register, not least as an adviser to Socially Recruited, an AI business. In moving Amendment 38 in my name, I will not speak to any other amendments in this group. Amendment 38 goes to the heart of the issue du jour: regulators have seldom been so much in the press and in the public eye. As the press would have it, they were hauled into No. 11 just a few days ago, but this speaks to what we want from our regulators across our economy and society. At their best, our regulators are the envy of the world. Just consider the FCA when we did the fintech regulatory sandbox: as a measure of success, it was replicated in well over 50 jurisdictions around the world. We know how to do right-sized regulation and how to set up our regulators to succeed to do that most difficult of tasks—to balance innovation, economic growth, and consumers’ and citizens’ rights. That is what all regulators should be about. It is not straightforward; it is complex but entirely doable. Amendment 38 simply proposes wording to assist the Information Commissioner’s Office. When it comes to the economic growth duty—“#innovation”—it simply refers back to Section 108 of the 2015 Act. I believe that bringing this clarity into the Bill will assist the regulator and enable all the conversations that are rightly going on right now, and all the plans that are being produced and reported on, such as those around AI, to be properly discussed and given proper context, with an Information Commissioner’s Office that is supported through clarity as to its responsibilities and obligations when it comes to economic growth. In simple terms, this would mean that these responsibilities are restricted and clearly set out according to Section 108 of the 2015 Act. It is critical that this should be the case if we are to have clarity around the commissioner’s independence as a supervisory authority on data protection, an absolutely essential condition for EU adequacy decisions. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that he likes my drafting. I hope that he will accept and incorporate my amendment into the Bill. I look forward to the debate. I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 38 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. More than ever before, the commissioner, alongside other regulators, is being pressured to support the Government’s growth and innovation agenda. In Clause 90, the Bill places unprecedented obligations on the ICO to support innovation. The question, in respect of both the existing growth duty and Clause 90, is whether they are in any sense treated as overriding the ICO’s primary responsibilities in data protection and information rights. How does the ICO aim to balance those duties, ensuring that its regulatory actions support economic growth while maintaining necessary protections? We need to be vigilant. As it is, there are criticisms regarding the way the Information Commissioner’s Office carries out its existing duties. Those criticisms can be broadly categorised into issues with enforcement, independence and the balancing of competing interests. The ICO has a poor record on enforcement; it has been reluctant to issue fines, particularly to public sector organisations. There has been an overreliance on reprimands, as I described in Committee. The ICO has been relying heavily on reprimands, rather than stronger enforcement actions. It has also been accused of being too slow with its investigations. There are concerns about these new duties, which could pose threats to the ability of the Information Commissioner’s Office to effectively carry out its primary functions. For that reason, we support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for moving this amendment. I am sure we can all agree that the ICO should encourage and accommodate innovation. As I noted during the first day on Report, in a world where trade and business are ever more reliant on cross-border data transfers, data adequacy becomes ever more important. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, was able to give the House the reassurance that this Bill was designed with EU adequacy in mind. We were pleased to hear that the Government’s course of action is not expected to put this at risk. I also suggest that this Bill represents even less of a departure from GDPR than did its predecessor, the DPDI Bill. We welcome the Government’s assurances, but we look to them to address the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Holmes. I think we can all agree that he has engaged constructively and thoughtfully on this Bill throughout.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his Amendment 38 relating to the ICO’s innovation duty. I agree with his comments about the quality of our regulators. I reiterate the statements made throughout the Bill debates that the Government are committed to the ongoing independence of the ICO as a regulator and have designed the proposals in the Bill with retaining EU adequacy in mind. The commissioner’s status as an independent supervisory authority for data protection is assured. The Information Commissioner has discretion over the application of his new duties. It will be for him to set out and justify his activities in relation to those duties to Parliament. To answer the specific point, as well as that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, considerations of innovations will not come at the expense of the commissioner’s primary objective to secure an appropriate level of protection for personal data. I hope that reassures the noble Lord.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and thank the Minister for his response. I believe my wording would assist the ICO in its mission, but I have listened to what the Minister has said and, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 38 withdrawn.

Amendment 39 not moved.

Amendment 40

Moved by

40: Clause 90, page 113, line 20, after “children” insert “merit specific protection with regard to their personal data because they” Member's explanatory statement This amendment adds an express reference to children meriting specific protection with regard to their personal data in new section 120B(e) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (Information Commissioner’s duties in relation to functions under the data protection legislation). See also the amendment in my name to Clause 70, page 78, line 23.

Amendment 40 agreed.

Amendments 41 to 43 not moved.

Amendment 44

Moved by

44: After Clause 92, insert the following new Clause— “Code of practice on Children's Data and Education(1) The Commissioner must prepare a code of practice which contains such guidance as the Commissioner considers appropriate on the processing of data in connection with the provision of education.(2) Guidance under subsection (1) must include consideration of—(a) all aspects of the provision of education including learning, school management and safeguarding;(b) all types of schools and learning settings;(c) the need for transparency and evidence of efficacy on the use of AI systems in the provision of education;(d) the impact of profiling and automated decision-making on children’s access to education opportunities;(e) the principle that children have a right to know what data about them is being generated, collected, processed, stored and shared;(f) the principle that those with parental responsibility have a right to know how their children's data is being generated, collected, processed, stored and shared;(g) the safety and security of children’s data;(h) the need to ensure children's access to and use of counselling services and the exchange of information for safeguarding purposes are not restricted.(3) In preparing a code or amendments under this section, the Commissioner must have regard to—(a) the fact that children are entitled to a higher standard of protection than adults with regard to their personal data as set out in the UK GDPR, and the ICO’s Age Appropriate Design code;(b) the need to prioritise children's best interests and to uphold their rights under UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and General Comment 25;(c) the fact that children may require different protections at different ages and stages of development;(d) the need to support innovation to enhance UK children's education and learning opportunities, including facilitating testing of novel products and supporting the certification and the development of standards;(e) ensuring the benefits from product and service developed using UK children’s data accrue to the UK.(4) In preparing a code or amendments under this section, the Commissioner must consult with—(a) children,(b) educators,(c) parents,(d) persons who appear to the Commissioner to represent the interests of children,(e) the AI Safety Institute, and(f) the relevant Education department for each nation of the United Kingdom.(5) The Code applies to data processors and controllers that— (a) are providing education in school or other learning settings;(b) provide services or products in connection with the provision of education;(c) collect children's data whilst they are learning;(d) use education data, education data sets or pupil data to develop services and products;(e) build, train or operate AI systems and models that impact children’s learning experience or outcomes;(f) are public authorities that process education data, education data sets or pupil data.(6) The Commissioner must prepare a report, in consultation with the EdTech industry and other stakeholders set out in subsection (4), on the steps required to develop a certification scheme under Article 42 of the UK GDPR, to enable the industry to demonstrate the compliance of EdTech services and products with the UK GDPR, and conformity with this Code.(7) Where requested by an education service, evidence of compliance with this Code must be provided by relevant providers of commercial products and services in a manner that satisfies the education service's obligations under the Code.(8) In this section—“EdTech” means a service or product that digitise education functions including administration and management information systems, learning and assessment and safeguarding, including services or products used within school settings and at home on the recommendation, advice or instruction of a school;“education data” means personal data that forms part of an educational record.“education data sets” means anonymised or pseudonymised data sets that include Education Data or Pupil Data.“efficacy” means that the promised learning outcomes can be evidenced.“learning setting” means a place where children learn including schools, their home and extra-curricular learning services for example online and in-person tutors.“pupil data” means personal data about a child collected whilst they are learning which does not form part of an educational record.“safety and security” means that it has been adequately tested.“school” means an entity that provides education to children in the UK including early years providers, nursery schools, primary schools, secondary schools, sixth form colleges, city technology colleges, academies, free schools, faith schools, special schools, state boarding schools, and private schools.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment proposes a statutory Code of Practice on Children and Education to ensure that children benefit from heightened protections when their data is processed for purposes relating to education. Common standards across the sector will assist schools in procurement.

My Lords, Amendment 44 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, proposes a statutory code of practice on children’s education to ensure that children benefit from heightened protections when their data is processed for the purposes of relating to education. My understanding is that, when the Minister stands up, he will tell us that the Secretary of State is going to write to the ICO and require him to either write such a code or, if it is more practical, extend the AADC to cover educational settings. The either/or is because Government say the ICO is undertaking a consultation on edtech and DSIT is doing a consultation on AI, both of which have ramifications for children’s data at school. Rather than make the argument for the amendment as written, I shall put on record for the department and the ICO the expectations of such a code. I hope that the Minister concurs with this list and that he will ensure that the ICO works with me and expert colleagues in the field to look at and respond to the evidence and ensure that the code addresses our concerns. The code must apply to education provided in school settings but also outside the classroom—for example, when children use edtech products to complete homework set by school or for independent learning. The code must consider all aspects of the provision of education, including safeguarding and administration, as well as learning. The code should take as a starting point that children merit heightened protections and consider the needs of children at different ages and stages. The code should provide specific guidance on profiling, including predictions that may impact on children’s educational opportunities or outcomes. The code should require the ICO or the DfE to work with third parties to develop certification and accreditation schemes to support educators and parents in choosing products and services that are safe and private and improve learning outcomes. Lastly, in drawing up the code, the ICO must consult with children, parents, educators, devolved Governments and industry. I also want to put on record that “school” means an entity that provides education to children in the UK. Importantly, that includes early-years providers, nursery schools, primary schools and so on, because often early years are left out of this equation.

16:30:00

Without slipping into issues that we will debate in a moment, it is important to record here that on page 19 of the AI consultation the Government have proposed including works created by children in the course of their education—for example, essays, art, science products and musical creations—as part of their proposal to make IP-protected works freely available to AI web scrapers and other AI interests under their data mining exception rules. My understanding of the proposal is that they mean freely available in both senses. Those who specialise in the area of education are very shocked by this suggestion. One wrote to me and said:

“children go to school for the state to enable their right to education, not to enable their exploitation for data mining. This is an absolute no”.

I want the Minister to explain whether this is now the price of a school-based education. Is this a decision the Government have made?

I cannot see a reasonable way for a child to opt out of such an arrangement, which is at odds with current advice, which, I note, was updated only last week and says:

“It is recommended that personal data is not used in generative AI tools”;

and that

“Schools and colleges must not allow or cause students’ original work to be used to train generative AI models unless they have permission, or an exception to copyright applies … Exceptions to copyright are limited, and settings may wish to take legal advice to ensure they are acting within the law”.

This is advice to teachers that they could not possibly implement. It is a giveaway of a child’s right to privacy and with it their safety and their autonomy. I have been inundated on this exact point, so I really would be grateful for the noble Lord to explain the extent to which this is going to happen and what boundaries the Minister sees to this outcome.

Would the Minister also say whether he is confident that the ICO’s consultation on edtech will be meaningful. I say this in light of the Online Safety Act, which has enraged dozens of organisations, large and small, which provided extensive evidence and opinion that has all been summarily dismissed by Ofcom, which has watered down codes in spite of evidence to the contrary and failed to act on provisions agreed in this House. I really hope to be pleased and proud that the Government have chosen to have an edtech code, so I would like some reassurance on these points.

Finally, I just want to say to the House that I was, by chance, on a call with children from all across the world on the weekend, and their primary concern was that technology, including AI, was shaping their world for the worse. Children are asking that school be a place of security, safety and freedom, without the extractive or pushy qualities that characterise tech in the rest of their lives. I hope the Minister is willing to commit to that when he responds. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to which I have added my name. I will speak briefly because I wish to associate myself with everything that she has said, as is normal on these topics. Those of us who worked long and hard on the Online Safety Act had our fingers burnt quite badly when things were not written into the Bill. While I am pleased—and expect to be even more pleased in a few minutes—that the Government are in favour of some form of code of conduct for edtech, whether through the age-appropriate design code or not, I am nervous. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron said, every day with Ofcom we are seeing the risk-aversion of our regulators in this digital space. Who can blame them when it appears to be the flavour of the month to say that, if only the regulators change the way they behave, growth will magically come? We have to be really mindful that, if we ask the ICO to do this vaguely, we will not get what we need. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, as ever, makes a very clear case for why it is needed. I would ask the Minister to be absolutely explicit about the Government’s intention, so that we are giving very clear directions from this House to the regulator.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. I have added a few further words to my speech in response, because she made an extremely good point. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and her tenacity in trying to make sure that we secure a code for children’s data and education, which is so needed. The education sector presents unique challenges for protecting children’s data. Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding, I look forward to what the Minister has to say. I hope that whatever is agreed is explicit; I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. I had my own conversation with the Minister about Ofcom’s approach to categorisation which, quite frankly, does not follow what we thought the Online Safety Act was going to imply. It is really important that we absolutely tie down what the Minister has to say. The education sector is a complex environment. The existing regulatory environment does not adequately address the unique challenges posed by edtech, as we call it, and the increasing use of children’s data in education. I very much echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said: children attend school for education, not to be exploited for data mining. Like her, I cross over into considering the issues related to the AI and IP consultation. The worst-case scenario is using an opt-in system that might incentivise learners or parents to consent, whether that is to state educational institutions such as Pearson, exam boards or any other entity. I hope that, in the other part of the forest, so to speak, that will not take place to the detriment of children. In the meantime, I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say on Amendment 44.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for moving her amendment. Before I begin, let me declare my interest as a recently appointed director of Lumi, an edtech provider—but for graduates, not for schools. AI has the potential to revolutionise educational tools, helping teachers spend less time on marking and more time on face-to-face teaching with children, creating more innovative teaching tools and exercises and facilitating more detailed feedback for students. AI presents a real opportunity to improve education outcomes for children, opening more opportunities throughout their lives. There are deeply compelling promises in edtech. However—there is always a however when we talk about edtech—creating and using AI education tools will require the collection and processing of children’s personal data. This potentially includes special category data—for instance, medical information pertaining to special educational needs such as dyslexia. Therefore, care must be taken in regulating how this data is collected, stored, processed and used. Without this, AI poses a major safeguarding risk. We share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and wholeheartedly support the spirit of her amendment. We agree that it is prudent to require the ICO to make a code of practice on children’s data and education, and I particularly welcome a requirement on the ICO to consult with and involve parents. Parents know their children best, needless to say, and have their best interests at heart; their input will be critical in building trust in AI-assisted educational tools and facilitating their rollout and benefits for children throughout the UK. However, as I said earlier at Report—and I shall not repeat the arguments now—we have concerns about the incorporation of international law into our law, and specifically, in this instance, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We cannot therefore support the amendment as drafted. That said, we hope very much that the Government will listen carefully to the arguments raised here and take steps to introduce appropriate safeguards for children and young people in our data legislation regime. I suspect that most parents will greatly welcome more reassurance about the use of their children’s data.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for raising this important topic today, and thank noble Lords for the impassioned speeches that we have heard. As my noble friend Lady Jones mentioned in Committee, the ICO has been auditing the practices of several edtech service providers and is due to publish its findings later this year. I am pleased to be able to give the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, a firm commitment today that the Government will use powers under the Data Protection Act 2018 to require the ICO to publish a new code of practice addressing edtech issues. The noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding, both raised important points about the specificity, and I will try to address some of those. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her suggestions about what the code should include. We agree that the starting point for the new code should be that children merit special protection in relation to their personal data because they may be less aware of the risks and their rights in relation to its processing. We agree that the code should include guidance for schools on how to comply with their controller duties in respect of edtech services, and guidance for edtech services on fulfilling their duties under the data protection framework—either as processors, controllers or joint controllers. We also agree that the code should provide practical guidance for organisations on how to comply with their so-called: “Data protection by design and by default” duties. This would help to ensure that appropriate technical and organisational measures are implemented in the development and operation of processing activities undertaken by edtech services. The noble Baroness suggested that the new code should include requirements for the ICO to develop the code in consultation with children, parents, educators, children’s rights advocates, devolved Governments and industry. The commissioner must already consult trade associations, data subjects and persons who appear to the commissioner to represent the interest of data subjects before preparing a code, but these are very helpful suggestions. The development of any new code will also follow the new procedures introduced by Clause 92 of this Bill. The commissioner would be required to convene an expert panel to inform the development of the code and publish the draft code. Organisations and individuals affected by the code would be represented on the panel, and the commissioner would be required to consider its recommendations before publishing the code. Beyond this, we do not want to pre-determine the outcome of the ICO’s audits by setting out the scope of the code on the face of the Bill now. The audits might uncover new areas where guidance is needed. Ensuring a clear scope for a code, grounded in evidence, will be important. We believe that allowing the ICO to complete its audits, so that the findings can inform the breadth and focus of the code, is appropriate. The ICO will also need to carefully consider how its codes interrelate. For example, the noble Baroness suggested that the edtech code should cover edtech services that are used independently by children at home and the use of profiling to make predictions about a child’s attainment. Such processing activities may also fall within the scope of the age-appropriate design code and the proposed AI code, respectively. We need to give the ICO the flexibility to prepare guidance for organisations in a way that avoids duplication. Fully understanding the problems uncovered by the ICO audits will be essential to getting the scope and content of each code right and reducing the risk of unintended consequences. To complement any recommendations that come from the ICO and its audits, the Department for Education will continue to work with educators and parents to help them to make informed choices about the products and services that they choose to support teaching and learning. The noble Baroness’s suggestion that there should be a certification scheme for approved edtech service providers is an interesting one that we will discuss with colleagues in the Department for Education. However, there might be other solutions that could help schools to make safe procurement decisions, and it would not be appropriate to use the ICO code to mandate a specific approach. The point about schools and the use of work by children is clearly important; our measures are intended to increase the protections for children, not to reduce them. The Government will continue to work closely with noble Lords, the Department for Education, the ICO and the devolved regions as we develop the necessary regulations following the conclusion of the ICO audit. I hope that the noble Baroness is pleased with this commitment and as such feels content to withdraw her amendment.

16:45:00

May I ask for a commitment from the Dispatch Box that, when the order is complete and some of those conversations are being discussed, we can have a meeting with the ICO, the DfE and noble Lords who have fought for this since 2018?

I am very happy to give that commitment. That would be an important and useful meeting.

I thank the Minister and the Government. As I have just said, we have been fighting for this since 2018, so that is quite something. I forgot to say in my opening remarks that edtech does not, of course, have an absolute definition. However, in my mind—it is important for me to say this to the House—it includes management, safety and tech that is used for educational purposes. All those are in schools, and we have evidence of problems with all of them. I was absolutely delighted to hear the Government’s commitments, and I look forward to working with the ICO and the department. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 44 withdrawn.

Clause 94: Analysis of performance

Amendment 44A

Moved by

44A: Clause 94, page 119, line 1, at end insert— “(1) In the 2018 Act, in section 139, after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The report must include an assessment of the Commissioner’s performance of the duties assigned to it by regulations under section (Enforcement) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.””

In moving Amendment 44A, I shall also speak to Amendments 61 to 65 in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Freyberg. I registered my interests in Committee, but I begin by restating that I am a copyright holder. I am married to a copyright holder, and I have deep connections with many in the creative communities who are impacted by this issue. I am also an adviser to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford, and I have the pleasure and privilege of working alongside dozens of people whose businesses and academic interests relate solely to AI. Until last night, I had a very technical argument about the amendments—about what they would do and how they would work. But I sat in the Gallery of the other place for several hours last night to listen to the debate on the creative industries, and I listened virtually to what I did not see from the Gallery, and it really made me reconsider my approach today. It was striking that, whether on the Green, DUP, Liberal Democrat or Conservative Benches, or the Government’s own Back Benches, the single biggest concern in a debate that ran for hours, with many speakers, was the question of copyright and AI. Indeed, it figured in all but two or three speeches. Moreover, as I sat in the Gallery and people started to read from the Times, the Mail, Politico and the tech blogs, an increasing flow of MPs, many on the Government’s own Benches and some actually in the Government, texted me to say that their leadership was wrong and they hoped this fight would be won for the UK’s creative industries. It is a very great privilege to be on these Benches and never have to vote against the Whip. But I say to my friends and colleagues on all sides that, as we debate today, hundreds of organisations and many individual rights holders are watching. They are watching to see what this House will do in the face of a government proposal that will transfer their hard-earned property from them to another sector without compensation, and with it their possibility of a creative life, or a creative life for the next generation. The Government are doing this not because the current law does not protect intellectual property rights, nor because they do not understand the devastation it will cause, but because they are hooked on the delusion that the UK’s best interests and economic future align with those of Silicon Valley. The Minister will say to the House that a consultation is ongoing and we should wait for the results. This was the same line the Minister in the other place, Chris Bryant, took last night; he said that his door and his mind were open. If that is the case, I would like to know why the honourable Dame Caroline Dinenage, the chair of the Commons Select Committee, said she felt “gaslit” by Ministers and the Secretary of State. I would also like to know why the Minister in charge of the Bill in the other place has refused a meeting with me twice and why the creative industries say that they get blandishments from a junior Minister while the AI companies get the undivided attention of the Secretary of State. Most importantly, the assertion that the consultation is open and fair is critically undermined because it was launched with a preferred option. For the record, the Government’s preferred option is to give away the property rights of those who earned them on the promise of growth, growth, growth to the nation. Unfortunately, the Government cannot say to whom that growth will accrue or how much it will be. But the one thing they are absolutely sure of—Government, Opposition, AI companies and those whose property rights the Government are giving away—is that it will not accrue to the creative industries. We have before us the most extraordinary sight of a Labour Government transferring wealth directly from 2.4 million individual creatives, SMEs and UK brands on the promise of vague riches in the future. Before I turn to the Opposition—which I will—I make it clear that there is a role in our economy for AI, there is a role in our economy for companies headquartered elsewhere, there is a role in our economy for new AI models and there is an opportunity of growth in the combination of AI and creative industries. But this forced marriage, on slave terms, is not it. We have the Government, putting growth front and centre, stunting one of their most lucrative industries, and the equally extraordinary sight of the Conservative Opposition for the most part sitting on their hands, against the wishes of many in their tribe, putting party ahead of country because they prefer to have proof of the Government’s economic incompetence rather than protect the property rights of their citizens and creative industries. Let me kill a few sacred cows. Judges, lawyers and academics all agree that the law on copyright is clear, and the ICO determination that copyright stands in spite of the advances of AI is also clear. Ministers choosing to mirror the tech lobbyist language of uncertainty rather than defending the property rights of citizens and wealth creators is bewildering. They are not quoting the law or the experts; they point at the number of court cases as proof of lack of clarity. But I am at a loss, since a person who has had their goods stolen relying on their legal rights seems to be a sign that the law is clear. However, given the scale of the theft and the audacity of the robber barons, they should be able to turn to the Government for protection—rather than suggesting that we redefine the notion of theft. The Minister, the honourable Chris Bryant, said last night that change is needed and that we cannot do nothing, and the unified voices of the creative industries—from the biggest brands such as Sony and Disney to newspapers such as the Telegraph, the FT and the Guardian, and those who represent publishers, musicians or visual artists and the artists themselves—all agree. Nobody is saying that we should leave it as it is. They are saying, “Make the copyright regime fit for the age of AI”—which is exactly what the amendments do. The amendments surface the names and owners of the crawlers that currently operate anonymously, record when, where and how IP is taken and, crucially, allow creators to understand what has been taken so that they can seek redress. This is not new, burdensome regulation—and it is certainly less regulation than the incredibly complex, costly and ultimately unworkable opt-outs or rights reservation mechanism of the preferred option of the consultation. All that creators are asking for is the enforcement of an existing property right. And when I say “creators”, I am not talking about 19th-century aristocrats occupying the time between lunch and dinner. In spite of the immense pleasure and extraordinary soft power that the creative industries bring, it is a hard-nosed, incredibly competitive and successful sector. It takes training, skill and talent to pursue what is often an insecure career, in which the copyright of career highs pays for the costs of a freelance life and the ongoing costs of making new work. In the other place last night, the Minister talked about transparency without reference to the fact that the tech lobby is already on manoeuvres, saying that transparency must not be too detailed because it will impact on their IP. Creatives’ IP is being given away for literally nothing, but AI companies wish to hide behind the IP of products that are simply impossible to make without the raw material of that data. So will the Minister explain why the Government pay for software licences, why our NHS pays for drugs and why members of the Cabinet pay for branded clothes, yet the Government think that the creative industries should invent something for nothing? The Government say that doing nothing is not an option. I agree—they could call a halt to the theft, instruct the ICO and the IPO now or even do an impact assessment of their preferred policy. This is the most extraordinary thing. They have a preferred way forward but, when I asked, they had to admit that they had not done an economic impact assessment, including of job displacement, even while acknowledging that job losses were inevitable. The Prime Minister cited an IMF report that claimed that, if fully realised, the gains from AI could be worth up to an average of £47 billion to the UK each year over a decade. He did not say that the very same report suggested that unemployment would increase by 5.5% over the same period. This is a big number—a lot of jobs and a very significant cost to the taxpayer. Nor does that £47 billion account for the transfer of funds from one sector to another. The creative industries contribute £126 billion per year to the economy. I do not understand the excitement about £47 billion when you are giving up £126 billion. The Government have a preferred option, but they have no enforcement mechanism. They have a preferred option, but no protocols to make it work. They have a preferred option but, by their own admission, no idea how an individual artist could hope to chase down dozens, hundreds or maybe thousands of AI companies to opt out or trace their work and rights. They have a preferred option, which is to give away other people’s livings and their vast contribution to the Treasury, and with that the jobs, joy and soft power of our creative industries that the country relies on globally. There are plenty of great ideas about how creativity could add GDP to the country, but that is not the demand that the Government have made of the sector. I will not quote most of those to whom I have spoken in the last week, because the language is unparliamentary. However, I will pass on the deep regret of Lord Lloyd- Webber that he is no longer in his place to stand by me today. I will also pass on the words of a Labour donor, who said that this was economically illiterate.

17:00:00

These amendments set out how a copyright regime could work. Amendment 61 would ensure that all operators of web crawlers must comply with UK law if they are marketed in the UK. Amendments 62 and 63 would require operators to be transparent about their identity and purpose, and allow creatives to understand if their content had been stolen. Amendment 64 would give enforcement powers to the ICO and allow for a private right of action by copyright holders. Amendment 44A would require the ICO to report on its enforcement record. Finally, Amendment 65 would require the Secretary of State to review technical solutions that might support a strong copyright regime. These are practical, sensible amendments that could support a valuable industry while looking forward to new technical efficiencies as they emerge.

To all the Members of the other place who talked warmly last night about the creativity of their own communities, of individual artists and small companies, or of centres excellence, I ask the question: how will they survive if their livelihood is dependent on chasing after AI bots that have scraped their opt-out work? Can they survive if the only way to own their own work is to opt out of the primary arena of distribution, sales and archiving? What do they think about galleries and museums: should they also opt out to protect their artists? If so, what does that do to tourism, of which the Minister last night was so proud to announce that the arts were the primary driver?

Before I sit down, I will quickly mention DeepSeek, a Chinese bot that is perhaps as good as any from the US—we will see—but which will certainly be a potential beneficiary of the proposed AI scraping exemption. Who cares that it does not recognise Taiwan or know what happened in Tiananmen Square? It was built for $5 million and wiped $1 trillion off the value of the US AI sector. The uncertainty that the Government claim is not an uncertainty about how copyright works; it is uncertainty about who will be the winners and losers in the race for AI. In rejecting the amendments, which could, in a matter of weeks, protect the income of the UK’s second most valuable industrial sector, the Government are pushing us into an uncertain and unsustainable future in which anyone with $5 million is to be entitled to the spoils of the UK creative industry.

I must finish, but I have to thank Paul McCartney, Elton and David, Lord Lloyd-Webber, Jeanette Winterson, Kate Mosse, Sir Simon Rattle, Richard Osman, Kate Bush and all the other 40,000 artists, musicians, writers and supporters who have added their names to this fight. I thank the News Media Association and the overwhelming number of creative arts organisations that have voiced their support. On their behalf, I ask the Government what their plans are to support all of us when we no longer have a living. What is the root of the Government’s soft power when they have to confront the diminishing returns of synthetic material that will be in direct competition to UK creative industries but could not be built without our IP? What is the Government’s answer to the young people who say they cannot have a creative life because there is no prospect of an income stream?

These amendments were urgent today, but the Government’s consultation has given permission to continue large-scale theft of property rights. The spectre of AI does nothing for growth if it gives away what we own so that we can rent from it what it makes. I beg to move.

My Lords, I strongly support Amendments 44A and 61 to 65 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who is to be congratulated on raising this incredibly important and timely subject, her doughty leadership on these issues, and an absolutely first-class speech. I regret that I was unable to take part in Committee. I will talk about the profound significance of these amendments for the media, although they are equally important across all the creative industries, which I know we will hear about. I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and note my other interests in the register. The key point is that an effective, enforceable and comprehensive copyright regime is absolutely fundamental to the sustainability of a free, independent media. Without it, the media cannot survive. Publishers have to invest huge amounts of money in high-quality journalism, investigative reporting, world-class comment and content. That they can do so is because copyright laws protect this content, ensuring the commercial viability of publishers —print and broadcast—as well as the livelihoods of individual journalists and freelancers. We talk a lot in this House about the threats to the free media resulting from digital, which smashed to pieces the business model that once sustained publishing and quality journalism. Publishers from across the spectrum have found innovative ways to adapt to that and produce new paths to commercial success to maintain their investment in independent investigation and reporting, which is the very lifeblood of a democracy. Parliament, with cross-party support, has assisted through the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, which establishes a tough competition regime to control the untrammelled power of vast, unaccountable platforms. But just when the media has been successfully adapting to the new world, along comes a far graver threat—AI—and government proposals flying in the face of the DMCC Act to weaken, through a sweeping text and data-mining exception, the UK’s gold-standard copyright regime, which is the absolute bedrock of quality, independent, regulated media. I know how strongly noble Lords opposite and from across the House value the fundamental role our free media plays in our democratic society, because without it, all of our freedom is in peril. The Bill and the connected government consultation will either help it or kill it; I am afraid it is as stark as that. Of course I welcome the Government’s apparent aim to provide transparency and facilitate licensing, but their preferred option of an exception—on which there has been no impact assessment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said—is fundamentally flawed and wholly impractical. Instead, we need with these amendments to ensure three things happen to make investment in journalism possible through an effective legal regime protecting copyright, creativity and innovation. That is transparency, the power of control over how news content is used, and fair remuneration. Only that will drive the dynamic licensing market that is necessary to ensure both the media and AI sectors flourish and grow. These imaginative amendments will achieve that by expanding UK copyright law to cover any AI model linked to the UK, compelling, in a strikingly simple way, AI firms to provide information about how they scrape content and what they scrape, and ensuring we have the enforcement powers necessary to make big tech—which is so adept at arrogantly ignoring what it does not like and what this House says—take notice. That is why I will support these amendments, and I am proud to do so. I must add that I am deeply disappointed that the long-standing commitment of my party to upholding the values of a free press and supporting the sustainability of the British media has not extended to formal support for these amendments. It is incredibly short-sighted. If these amendments pass, as I hope they will, this legislation can complete a landmark trio of laws—with the Online Safety Act and the DMCC Act—to make the giant platforms regulated and accountable. Like others in this debate, I want to make it clear that I support the noble Baroness’s absolutely vital amendments not because I am anti-AI but because I am pro free independent media, pro the creativity which fuels it, and pro the commercial foundations that support it. If these amendments are successful, we can create a situation where the tech and AI sectors can flourish alongside the creative industries, thereby powering economic growth between them. Because of the vital role the media plays in our democracy, I genuinely believe that this is one of the most crucial debates that we will have in this Parliament. I have this stark warning: without adequate transparency, control and reward, publishers will no longer be able to invest as they have in the creation of the original, high-quality investigative content on which our democracy and the accountability of those in power are based. Without that, our democracy will die in the dark at the hands of Silicon Valley, as we become dependent on the morass of fake news and social media clickbait. I strongly urge all noble Lords to support the amendments.

I am grateful to the noble, Lord Black, for daring to respond to the wonderful speech that opened the debate; I thought I might come in immediately afterwards, but I was terrified by it, so I decided that I would shelter on these Benches and gather my strength before I could begin to respond. I feel that I have to speak because I am a member of the governing party, which is against these amendments. However, I have signed up to them because I have interests in the media—which I declare; I suppose I should also declare that I have a minor copyright, but that is very small compared with the ones we have already heard about—and because I feel very strongly that we will get ourselves into even more trouble unless action is taken quickly. I have a very clear view of the Government’s proposals, thanks to a meeting with my noble friend the Minister yesterday, where he went through, in detail, some of the issues and revealed some of the thinking behind them; I hope that he will come back to the points he made to me when he comes to respond. There is no doubt that the use of a copyright work without the consent of the copyright owner in the United Kingdom is an infringement, unless it is “fair dealing” under UK copyright law. However, because of the developments in technology—the crawlers, scrapers and GAI that we have been hearing about—there is a new usage of a huge number of copyright works for the training of algorithms. That has raised questions about whether, and if so how, such usage has to be legislated for as “fair dealing”—if it is to be so—or in some other way, if there is indeed one. It is right, therefore, for the Government to have required the IPO to carry out a consultation on copyright and AI, which we have been talking about. However, given the alarm and concern evident in the creative sector, we certainly regret the delay in bringing forward this consultation and we are very concerned about its limited scope. Looking at it from a long way away, it seems that this is as much a competition issue as it is a copyright issue. It seems to me and to many others, as we have heard, that the IPO, by including in the consultation document a proposed approach described as an “exception with rights reservation”, has made a very substantial mistake. This may just be a straw-person device designed to generate more responses, but, if so, it was a bad misjudgement. Does it not make the whole consultation exercise completely wasteful and completely pointless to respond to? When my noble friend the Minister comes to respond, I hope that he, notwithstanding that proposed approach, will confirm that, as far as the Government are concerned, this is a genuine consultation and that all the possible options outlined by the IPO—and any other solutions brought forward during the consultation—will be properly considered on their merits and in the light of the responses to the consultation. What the creative industries are telling us—they have been united and vehement about this issue, as has already been described, in a way that I have never seen before—is that they must have transparency about what material is being scraped, the right to opt in to the TDMs taking place and a proper licensing system with fair remuneration for the copyright material used. The question of whether the GAI developers should be allowed to use copyright content, with or without the permission of the copyright owner, is a nuanced one, as a decision either way will have very wide-ranging ramifications. However, as we have heard, this issue is already affecting the livelihood of our creative sector—the one that, also as we have heard, we desperately need if we are to support a sustainable creative economy and provide the unbiased information, quality education and British-based entertainment that we all value and want to see flourish. We understand the need to ensure that the companies that want access to high-quality data and copyright material to train their AI models respect, and will be happy to abide by, any new copyright or competition regulations that may be required. However, the proposals we have heard about today—the ones that would come from the consultation, if we have to delay—will probably be very similar to the amendments before the House, which are modest and fair. We should surely not want to work with companies that will not abide by such simple requirements.

My Lords, I support Amendments 44A and the consequential amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Kidron, whose speech has, I think, moved the whole Committee across all Benches.

17:15:00

I speak as a career journalist and TV producer who has seen a systematic theft of media content by tech companies. Six years ago, my noble friend Lady Kidron and I were on the then Communications Committee. We were investigating the use of British journalistic content by social media companies to aggregate news on their platforms without giving users the provenance of the content or paying the media companies for republication of their information.

Now, with the arrival of RAG, the AI tool which can ensure that AI models have access to live news and information, the tech companies can browse the web to extract valuable content from journalistic websites and respond to users’ questions with the most up-to-date information. Once again, the tech companies are, in most cases, not paying for the use of data to train their models, nor giving users any idea of the provenance of that information. I understand that some AI companies have done deals with publishers, but that most, when offered the opportunity to do so, have refused to license content. They see it as another cost of business that they should not have to incur.

This is a continuum of years of piracy and theft by the tech companies against British content makers. Some big media companies have taken on the tech companies for breach of copyright, but it is very expensive. In the first nine months of its lawsuit against Open AI and Microsoft for copyright infringement to train their AI models, the New York Times spent $7.6 million, a sum way beyond the resources of many content creators in the UK. To compound the theft, the tech companies say they use so much data in training their models that is often not possible to identify the provenance of that data. However, in many cases the source of the data is being deliberately obscured by the AI companies.

In a US case against Meta for pirating content to develop its Llama model, the allegation is that not only did it use the book piracy website Library Genesis— I suspect many noble Lords will be as surprised as I am that such a site exists—but internal Meta emails show that the tech company went to some lengths to obscure the origin of the data. One Meta employee suggested removing copyright heads and document identifiers, including any lines containing “ISBN”, “copyright” and “all rights reserved”. Meta emails suggested that removing such metadata would “reduce legal complications”.

I know that this Government are desperate to bring the AI revolution to this country and see it as a source of huge economic growth, but if the tech companies are deliberately refusing to license data or, worse still, obscuring the data they have used, the opt-out suggestion in the AI consultation is going to be useless—and worse than that, as many other noble Lords have said.

These amendments are needed to ensure that the AI companies adhere to the copyright law and, in the process, ensure the future of our world-beating creative industries. If the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, calls a vote, I will be voting for Amendment 44A, and I encourage other noble Lords to join me in the “Contents” Lobby.

My Lords, this topic understandably arouses a lot of emotion, but it is a difficult one to resolve satisfactorily. The Communications and Digital Committee has examined the challenge of copyright in an AI world from several angles over the last couple of years, and our conclusion as a result of that work is that the tech and creative industries need to find a mutually beneficial way forward on copyright because, in this new world, they are relying on each other to succeed. The AI models and services that the tech platforms are building for consumer and commercial use, such as Chat GPT, Claude, Llama, Grok and others yet to emerge, have an insatiable and ongoing appetite for new, quality data and original content, and it is a continual supply of that content which will make them yet more sophisticated, and how each platform operator will compete in the race to dominate. What I have just described is also why the Government should not pursue copyright laws that primarily benefit foreign tech firms that are prepared to pay vast sums for energy, computing facilities and staff, but not, as we have heard, for data. During our inquiry on large language models, we heard contrasting interpretations of existing copyright law. Our view is that the application of copyright law in the context of AI is complex, but the principles remain clear. What is needed is a framework that aligns incentives between content creators and AI firms to help them strike mutually beneficial deals. In our reports, we have called for that framework to include: a transparency mechanism to allow rights holders to check for infringements; much better technical and legal enforceability; and measures to support a new market in responsible AI training data. I am pleased to say that the amendments in this group from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Camrose, reflect these objectives, but I would like to make some further comments on the way forward. While the Communications and Digital Committee has welcomed the Government’s copyright consultation as a step forward in making progress on this issue, we have cautioned strongly against adopting a flawed opt-out regime comparable to the version operating in the EU. Indeed, Matt Clifford’s recommendation that we adopt that EU model is the only part of his excellent AI Opportunities Action Plan that I disagree with. That said, ensuring the UK remains competitive in this global market is vital, and some might argue, contrary to what the noble Baroness has said, that the arrival of DeepSeek brings that into sharper focus. It is why I suspect the Government prefer an opt-out model. What we as a committee argue is that if, after their consultation, the Government decide to go ahead with an opt-out model, it must include the transparency, technical and stronger enforcement mechanisms I have already outlined and that are reflected in these amendments. What is important therefore to understand is that the amendments in this group could apply to an opt-in or opt-out model; they are flexible. Whichever route the Government take, it is essential that, alongside the creative industries that we have heard are so important to our economy and society, the conditions are set for our domestic AI tech sector to scale and compete. UK spin-out and start-up innovators can seriously challenge existing dominant tech firms with specialist AI models and new services and applications. Not only must our copyright regime not be a barrier to entry for UK start-ups seeking to scale but the UK needs a workable framework to incentivise a dynamic licensing market to promote and seize the economic value of the high-quality data this nation holds. That could make this country an attractive AI training destination for all AI models. Sorting all this out is urgent, and it is not easy. I worry that if we do not resolve it soon, the UK will be defined by our concerns about copyright to our detriment in the AI global race. The Government cannot wait for the courts to find a way forward; they must act swiftly once the consultation is over. This Bill is the right vehicle for doing so, and because it is what we call a Lords starter, it is yet to go through all the Commons stages; we are at the start of this process, and the Government have time. For all the reasons I have outlined, if the noble Baroness divides the House, I will support her in voting for these amendments.

My Lords, as one of the supporters of these amendments, I support the amendment so expertly moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I declare my interest as someone with a long-standing background in the visual arts and as an artist member of DACS, the Design and Artists Copyright Society. I thought it would be helpful to highlight and focus on just one element of the noble Baroness’s speech, specifically the issue of transparency. Here, there is a theme developing throughout the House on this issue. One of the biggest obstacles to ensuring fair pay for creators is that AI companies have not been transparent about what works they have used for training AI models. Tech companies have rebuffed transparency measures because they say that this will reveal trade secrets. While I understand that business need, it cannot come at the expense of creators. There is a way in which to make transparency measures work for both business and creators, giving access to creator representatives about the use of their work on a confidential basis to facilitate copyright licensing. This is, after all, what data rights have done for millions of people, giving them the agency to know when their data has been used. It is entirely reasonable and possible for transparency measures to be upheld and properly enforced. Therefore, considering the significance of this issue, I should be very grateful if the Minister will confirm that transparency measures proposed in the copyright and AI consultation will not be conditional on a reservation rights system.

My Lords, I rise briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Kidron’s important amendments. I declare an interest as a visual artist. I want to pick up on the language that Rachel Reeves used in conversation with Laura Kuenssberg in her Sunday programme, when she talked about getting the balance right. It needs to be emphasised that it is not a question of balance between the tech companies and the creative industries but a question about the use of data, and the consideration of the origin of that data should be central to a Bill about access to data. That is critical. It is perhaps ironic that at the heart of this there is a void, which is the lack of data about data, as my noble friend Lord Colville showed clearly in his speech. The creative industries themselves successfully use AI. As Paul McCartney pointed out in the same Laura Kuenssberg programme, in his case he did so by actively seeking and obtaining permission for the use of data, as everyone should. These amendments are wholly reasonable and do what the creative industries are asking for. If the Government do not accept them, I shall certainly vote for them.

My Lords, I also support these amendments so brilliantly introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. As a just-finishing member of the Communication and Digital Committee, I, too, associate myself with everything that our departing chair has just said so ably. I am a lover of the book Why Nations Fail, written by two Nobel laureates. It charts how countries succeed and fail in adopting technology. There are two important lessons in that book. The first is that one must not turn one’s back on the technology. As we consider this very difficult issue, it is important to say that those of us in favour of these amendments are not trying to be the German boatman sinking the first steamboat, the Ottoman Empire turning its back on the printing press or the hand knitters objecting to knitting machines in Elizabethan times. We embrace AI. It will transform society for the good. That is the first important point. The second lesson that Why Nations Fail teaches us is that, even as one embraces technology, the rule of law, property rights and giving people certainty over what they create and own are one of the other essential ingredients to success in harnessing the benefits of technology. That is why this issue matters so much. I, too, rewrote my brief remarks overnight on the back of the DeepSeek launch yesterday. I was struck by the panic among those in Silicon Valley, who thought, “Oh, my God. Is it possible that the Chinese have stolen open AI’s IP in order to create a better product?” Gosh, has Silicon Valley for a moment begun to feel what creative copyright owners have been feeling for several years? Actually, the valley is learning that certainty of copyright is an important part of driving growth in an adoption of technology. Another interesting thing happens when you ask DeepSeek what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989. It will not tell you, so it is clear that these supposed black boxes can be quite specific about what they include and exclude. That gives me confidence, as a non-technologist, that if we give the technology companies the challenge of creating simple mechanisms for copyright owners, they will jolly well do it, because they can definitely do it when they want to exclude content from models today.

17:30:00

I do not underestimate how hard the challenge is to chart this course. As my noble friend just said, it is important that we remain balanced, because we do not want to turn our back on the technology, but it needs to be transparent, and there needs to be a clear market and enforcement. All those things are in these amendments.

If someone owns a host of bricks lying at the end of the street and I use them to build a house, I should pay for those bricks. I honestly believe that, if electricity were available for free without meters, the big tech companies would use that electricity without paying. It is only because we have a means to force them to pay—to be clear about what they are using and to make sure that there is a trading market—that they are not. These amendments do that and, as my noble friend said, they do it in a way that is not prescriptive. I urge the Government to listen to the genuine cross-party support for these amendments.

My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken on the Bill. Given the excellence of the contributions to date, I have barely felt the need to. We are indebted to the tireless work, rhetorical skill and legislative expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson. I thank them all. I wholly support the premise of and intentions behind these amendments, although they would not strictly be necessary if we could just be patient and let the law of copyright work as it should and as it has done for over 300 years. Given the Government’s consultation on AI and copyright, and the intense pressure that they have put upon themselves to convert the UK into an engine of economic growth at all costs—sustainable or not—this is an issue of paramount and urgent importance to our creative future and to intellectual property. I offer a short contribution from my experience; after such a debate, I hope it will be additive and not repetitive. First and foremost, I am an art historian—a cack-handed artist long astounded by the creative genius of our island nation and particularly its flourishing globalisation in the 18th and 19th centuries. Much of that soft power came through the deployment of copyright —first legislated by this Parliament in the Statute of Anne 1709. We invented copyright; it is our duty to preserve and enhance it, not to let it be sacrificed on the altar of economic growth in an unsustainable race against China and America to machine-learned dominance at the expense of human creativity. Copyright was the child of the booksellers, the purveyors of the printed word through which knowledge spread around the world. Its first skirmishes were jurisdictional, with Scottish booksellers seeking to flood the English market, in breach of copyright, during the 1720s and 1730s. They argued that the law did not apply to them, as their processes—their printing presses—were outside the jurisdiction. Does that sound familiar? The same arguments are deployed today by the foreign generative-AI companies training their LLMs offshore to be deployed onshore. We have seen it all before: copyright succeeded then and will succeed now. From its printed beginnings, copyright expanded to cover all new media. William Hogarth famously lobbied Parliament to apply copyright to engravings, allowing him to control distribution of his remorseless satire. He was followed soon by Gillray, Punch and our proud heritage of ridicule. Copyright then absorbed the daguerreotype and photography, the phonograph and recorded sound, the computer and, of course, the internet—when avaricious news aggregators such as Google were brought to heel and properly licensed. The suggestion that copyright is not fit for purpose and is unable to address novel technologies—not that much is new in AI—is itself ridiculous. Copyright can and will regulate AI; we just need to give it and our common-law system of justice the time to make the right decisions. Secondly, I am an IP litigator qualified in both England and California. In that capacity, I am a member of the IP APPG that successfully lobbied the previous Government against the introduction of text- and data-mining exceptions that the AI developers so desperately seek. It is thus disappointing that the Labour Government now seek to revisit exactly the same ground and fight exactly the same battle. I am extremely grateful to the support of briefings provided by the Creative Rights in AI Coalition, and to the multitude of creative talent—both household names and those less celebrated—who have spoken out over many months in support of copyright. Their voices must be heard and it is for them that we fight. However, it is not just the creative industries that rely upon copyright, as we have heard; it is an essential tool in support of the digital revolutions of recent decades. When in California and ever since, I was privileged to represent a number of the world’s leading technology and digital content companies. All were very happy with the fitness for purpose of copyright to protect their source code, algorithms, graphic user interfaces and digital content, as licensed by the end-user licence agreements to which we are all party. Somehow that copyright is fit for purpose and is readily enforceable in other jurisdictions. The means of enforcing it are fully sufficient and we should not believe protestations to the contrary. In both the US and UK, major AI copyright disputes are making their way through the courts. We will have an authoritative decision by the summer. We should not rush to legislate in a judicial vacuum before really understanding how the existing law will be applied. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, confirmed to me in Oral Questions in November, “the Government are clear that copyright law must be respected when content is used to train AI models. If copies are made of protected work, licences must be required from the copyright owner unless a specific copyright exception applies”.—[Official Report, 11/11/24; col. 1570.] If the courts recognise the protection of copyright and the lack of applicable exceptions, injunctive and monetary relief will follow and the market will function. Insurance policies will not cover corporates that deploy AI that is not transparent in its training processes, and such tools will no longer be offered to customers. I am also confident that market regulators will be interested in investigating how technology giants did not unduly leverage their dominance in search and social media markets to compete unfairly with the creative industries and the human beings upon whose unlicensed endeavours their soaring profits were built; in other words, the market and its existing controls will function, licences will be issued and human creative endeavour will be recognised and rewarded. To the extent that these amendments make that more likely, they have my full support. Finally, I note my interest as proprietor of a live music, events and heritage venue. I finish by recognising the one silver lining of this existential saga. It is to remind us, in case we have forgotten, that the best way to enjoy creative human endeavour is in person, not through a digital device: listening live to an artist, sitting in a theatre or visiting an art gallery. Artists from William Blake to Neil Young would agree that the “dark Satanic Mills” of digitally generated and digitally accessed art should never replace human experience. Likewise, machine learning should never replace human creativity.

I too support this group of amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others. It surely goes without saying that our United Kingdom copyright law has to counter the increasing theft of intellectual property by artificial intelligence companies. As here advocated, we should provide transparency criteria that would allow copyright holders to identify when and from where their work has been taken. I am sure that the Minister agrees with that aim and is well aware of the strong human rights back-up support available to us from the 46 states affiliation of the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom remains a prominent member. I am a recent chairman of its education committee. As many of your Lordships know, first and foremost, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to privacy, including of personal data. Article 1 of its initial protocol protects property rights, including intellectual property rights and copyright. Secondly, Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime prohibits system interference by, for example, the transmission of computer data; while its Article 10 stipulates: “Offences related to infringements of copyright and related rights”. Thirdly, Article 11 of the 2024 Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law safe- guards privacy and personal data. Regarding copyright protection in recent centuries, we can be justly proud of our own United Kingdom record, beginning, as has already been said, with the Statute of Anne 1710, which granted legal protection to publishers of books. In the interests of those both here and abroad, we must uphold the high standards of that tradition. The United Kingdom should guide this good practice. Adopting these amendments is a clear example of so doing.

My Lords, I declare my interests as a composer and a copyright holder. I salute the speech of my noble friend Lady Kidron for its strength and accuracy. I too feel that there should be an impact assessment on such important matters. If noble Lords will spare me one minute, it might be worth mentioning a little bit of background. The record industry more or less ceased to exist when the internet and streaming came along. Of course, they brought enormous advantages, as I am sure AI will, but there was a huge cost. One reason why many great big pop groups have gone on tour in the last few years is that they are not earning money from records. Although there is an interest for the public to gain and disseminate more information, there is a cost for the basic product. Those records brought in money that paid for performers to be employed in studios to make new records. It is a vicious circle: once you stop that income coming in, you stop creativity in its tracks. We heard Sir Paul McCartney mentioned, and in one sense I am representing the more contemporary classical side. But I too have worked on the pop side, and I can I tell you that a record that we made for medics in Ukraine, with the help of no lesser figures than Neil Tennant and David Gilmour, has had 400,000 downloads so far, yet will produce only about £200 to go to Ukraine. That gives you some idea of how the shift in finance has changed in respect of what records bring in. Of course we cannot go backwards—this is progress—but we do have to be careful. We should think about the example that that sets. As I said, Paul McCartney was mentioned and, over the weekend, Sir Elton John summed up the feelings of many composers. I am sure he would not mind my representing his words to you here. He said: “Without thorough and robust copyright protection that allows artists to earn hard-fought earnings from their music, the UK’s future place on the world stage as a leader in arts and popular culture is under serious jeopardy. It is the absolute bedrock of artistic prosperity, and the country’s future success in the creative industries depends upon it”. I think those words would be reiterated by every composer and creator in this country. I will make one final point. In some ways, this is not a party-political issue but a cross-party one. It is our creativity that is at stake here. I have spoken in the past about music: the problems with touring and all the things that have hemmed in creativity. We have heard about the £126 billion that the creative industries bring in. There is support on both sides of the House. The Front Bench of the Conservative Party always used to say to me, “We salute the creative industries. We admire what they do and what they bring in to the economy”. The new Front Bench is saying much the same. But listen to Elton John and listen to Paul McCartney and, if you value the creative industries as much as you say you do, for God’s sake protect their copyright.

My Lords, I rise briefly to support these important clauses. I declare my interests as I hold copyright as a filmmaker and writer. Copyright and IP exist to assert ownership over creative works and protect the interests of creators. This is fundamental to supporting people whose job it is to have ideas, be creative and innovate in a range of different ways. Undermining this and allowing major breaches of that protection risks undermining the whole basis of innovation and creativity within a society, and that cannot be done lightly. Creators of generative AI models claim that they “need” more and more materials to train their models on, including materials that are the creative works of others—just as, until last week, they had claimed that they needed more and more of the latest chips. We should ask ourselves very seriously why they need these copyright-protected works. What use-cases are there for models that have been trained on copyrighted works that would not be possible with models trained on public-domain materials and works for which the rights have been properly obtained?

17:45:00

From what I understand, chatbots—I have asked a few—do not need to have copyright modern literature in their training sets to be able to learn natural languages, or even narrative structure. Image and music generators do not need to be trained on copyright artistic works to be able to create images, designs or sounds for a user.

If a user wants to use generative AI as part of their creative process, as we have heard about on several occasions this evening, they can give a model ring-fenced access to their own works or to specific works that they have permission to use, just as a scientific researcher can do with the data that they have access to. The model does not need to have been trained on copyright material beforehand.

We have had a couple of mentions of DeepSeek already this evening. Another lesson that has become very clear with the launch of that model is that what drives the future is innovation and creativity. From what I know about DeepSeek, it is the creativity of its inventors that has allowed it to set new benchmarks for efficiency. It is creativity and innovation that is put at risk by failing to protect creators through copyright, IP and data protection laws.

There are many potential uses for generative AI—we are in a period of early exploration—but I ask the Minister to think long and hard before giving up the protection of creatives and innovators with respect to their ideas and their works in the service of the claims of need from generative AI manufacturers. We need to interrogate why they really need copyrighted works in their training sets, and what service they are really going to deliver as a result of having them. If it is a matter of technical difficulties around not being able to differentiate copyrighted works, that is a problem to be solved, not a reason for abandoning copyright protection. And the people who solve problems are the creatives—the people whose livelihoods are under threat.

My Lords, as a former Chief Whip, I am all too well aware of the dangers of listening to a debate. However, I have to tell my noble friend Lord Camrose that I have been persuaded by what I have heard so far, and I am afraid that he may have a great deal of work to do to persuade me not to vote for this amendment.

My Lords, I have reluctantly stayed out of this debate precisely because I am a copyright holder with copyrights stretching back over several decades. But, having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others, it would be entirely wrong of me to remain silent. I have to express deep concern and disbelief that the Labour Party of Jennie Lee and of Chris Smith is proposing such a way forward. You cannot on the one hand talk about the importance to every single member of our country—whether at school or going to the high arts of opera—of the importance of the creative industries, and then, with legislation, begin their demolition. The Government’s approach is entirely wrong. Yes, they can strip away my rights. Indeed, only last week I received the huge sum of £1.76 for a performance. But that £1.76 represented a contract between an artist and someone who used the artist’s material. We are destroying that principle of contract. These amendments seem sensible, rational and reasonable, and they open the door for the development of AI in exactly the same way as when, as one of the officers of the British Actors’ Equity Association in the early 1990s, we were tasked with negotiating with the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 on the brilliant and new innovation of cable and satellite. We negotiated in order to try to protect artists, some hugely successful and some not so successful. Those negotiations took two years—although we do not have two years now—and at the start of them we were told that we would never reach an agreement. We reached an agreement, which has been adapted and adopted for all other forms of the use of television and audio material. Are the Government seriously telling us that we do not have the wit, intelligence or drive as a country to come to an adequate negotiation that protects copyright and advances AI? If they are seriously telling us that, I urge noble Lords to disregard it. I urge your Lordships most of all to vote not for the Elton Johns or the Paul McCartneys but for that one person who might be relying on that £1.76, and support these amendments.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on a barnstorming speech. Many of the points that I wanted to make have already been made by others, so I will be brief. I declare my interest as a rights holder. I am slightly worried that this is beginning to sound like special pleading, and I hope that is not the effect it has. I am also the daughter of two writers, and I recognise that £1.76, because sometimes that was it. That £1.76, as the noble Lord has just said, is a contract. There are many artists, musicians and writers in this country who get money for their books in libraries or tiny amounts of royalties, and those royalties are keeping them alive. They enable them to create original work and earn their living. I believe that generative AI will be transformational and largely for the good. However, it is perfectly possible to distinguish between meaningful progress that advances humanity—we heard in an earlier debate about AI tracking naval ships, and brilliant advances are being made in medicine—and plain theft of intellectual property. That theft has been going on now for several years, and the people who are being stolen from are not even aware that their work has been stolen. For that reason, I do not actually believe it is necessary to seek a balance. This is not about balance; it is about implementing and upholding the rule of law. The proposed rights reservation from the Government would reverse the fundamental principle of UK copyright law, which, as others have said, was established in 1710—I think it was 1710, not 1709, but we may differ. My mother wrote the Handbook of Copyright in British Publishing Practice in 1974, so I have some visceral memory of all this. The Government are proposing to reverse the fundamental protections that have made us a gold standard in the world. The amendments propose to make UK copyright law enforceable in an age of generative AI—to respond and expand our laws, in what is in my view an extremely proportionate way, to recognise the rights of creators. We have all learned something in this debate that is astonishing to me: apparently the Government have not conducted an economic impact assessment of their proposals on one of our most successful industries. I find that completely shocking. It suggests a lack of seriousness on the part of this Government and those who are making these proposals, which I hope the Minister will address later. If artists, musicians and creators cannot earn a living, there will be no original content and no more content for AI to build on. That is surely in itself an economic argument that somewhat undermines the vague idea that innovation cannot happen without the wholesale abolition of our proud tradition of copyright. Chris Bryant said last night that something must change and that we cannot do nothing. I agree, but what we must do is double down.

My Lords, I support these amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. Not to do so would be, to quote some of her earlier work, beyond the edge of reason. I support the noble Baroness because I support creatives. They are the individuals who bring such sweet sound where otherwise there would be silence, who fill a blank page with words that can move our hearts, our souls and our minds, and can change the course of history. I support the amendments because I support the rule of law. IP and copyright are well established over centuries. This is not complex or controversial. There is an extraordinary tedium to the whole question of TDM. Ultimately, I could do this in three words when addressing big tech: “It’s not yours. Take your audacious hands off other people’s work”. And that is from someone who is pro-innovation, pro-AI and pro-technology—but in a way where there is a negotiation and agreed conclusion as to how artists, rights holders and creatives want to engage with these technologies. We have already heard many times, rightly, that there has been no economic impact assessment. I ask the Minister for his views on that. While on that subject, I ask him, out of genuine interest, what is the genesis of the £400 billion figure in the AI opportunities plan? Where does it come from, what is it based on and how does it sit against the impact that not acting will have on our creative sector? I support these amendments, and I urge everyone in your Lordships’ House to do so. To misquote the late, great Dennis Potter, “Vote, vote, vote for Beeban Kidron”.

My Lords, I have come specifically to the debate on this part of the Bill especially to support these amendments. I regret that I have not played a part in any other part of the Bill, but this subject is so important that I have come—and I shall speak briefly because I support what everyone else has said. I am coming from a totally different angle. As a judge, I tried these cases, and they worked perfectly well. We never had a problem in coming to a decision on copyright or intellectual property. I did not do very many, but I sat with judges who did it all the time. I am absolutely astonished that the Government are setting aside long-established law; whether it goes back to 1709 or 1710—whether it is the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, or the noble Earl, Lord Devon, who is right—I do not think matters. The point is that it goes back a long way, and it works. Why are the Government setting it aside instead of strengthening it, for all the reasons that have been given so far? I wonder whether, in the absence of an impact assessment, the Government have put their mind to what is going to happen on the ground, and not just with regard to the £1.76. Is the £128 billion going to exist to go into the coffers of the Treasury? I suspect that, whatever they think they are going to make, no one from the government Benches has thought about what they are going to lose. Basically, I am asking the Government to sit back, think again and reflect with the greatest possible care on the brilliant speech of noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the unanimity across this House. Having been in this place for many years, I cannot remember another occasion where I have not heard a single voice supporting the Government. Are the Government going to listen to that?

18:00:00

My Lords, I can be pretty brief. We have had some fantastic speeches, started by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, with her superb rallying cry for these amendments, which we 100% support on these Benches. As she said, there is cross-party support. We have heard support from all over the House and, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has just said, there has not been a dissenting voice. I have a long association with the creative industries and with AI policy and yield to no one in my enthusiasm for AI—but, as the noble Baroness said, it should not come at the expense of the creative industries. It should not just be for the benefit of DeepSeek or Silicon Valley. We are very clear where we stand on this. I pay tribute to the Creative Rights in AI Coalition and its campaign, which has been so powerful in garnering support, and to all those in the creative industries and creators themselves who briefed noble Lords for this debate. These amendments respond to deep concerns that AI companies are using copyright material without permission or compensation. With the new government consultation, I do not believe that their preferred option is a straw man for a text and data mining exemption, with an opt out that we thought was settled under the previous Government. It starts from the false premise of legal uncertainty, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords. As the News Media Association has said, the Government’s consultation is based on a mistaken idea, promoted by tech lobbyists and echoed in the consultation, that there is a lack of clarity in existing copyright law. This is completely untrue. The use of copyrighted content without a licence by gen AI firms is theft on a mass scale and there is no objective case for a new text and data mining exception. No effective opt-out system for the use of content by gen AI models has been proposed or implemented anywhere in the world, making the Government’s proposals entirely speculative. It is vital going forward that we ensure that AI companies cannot use copyrighted material without permission or compensation; that AI development does not exploit loopholes to bypass copyright laws; that AI developers disclose the sources of the data they use for training their models, allowing for accountability and addressing infringement; and that we reinforce the existing copyright framework, rather than creating new exceptions that disadvantage creators. These amendments would provide a mechanism for copyright holders to contest the use of their work and ensure a route for payment. They seek to ensure that AI innovation does not come at the expense of the rights and livelihoods of creators. There is no market failure. We have a well-established licensing system as an alternative to the Government’s proposed opt-out scheme for AI developers using copyrighted works. A licensing system is the only sustainable solution that benefits both creative industries and the AI sector. We have some of the most effective collective rights organisations in the world. Licensing is their bread and butter. Merely because AI platforms are resisting claims, does not mean that the law in the UK is uncertain. Amending UK law to address the challenges posed by AI development, particularly in relation to copyright and transparency, is essential to protect the rights of creators, foster responsible innovation and ensure a sustainable future for the creative industries. This should apply regardless of which country the scraping of copyright material takes place in, if developers market their product in the UK, regardless of where the training takes place. It would also ensure that AI start-ups based in the UK are not put at a competitive disadvantage due to the ability of international firms to conduct training in a different jurisdiction. As we have heard throughout this debate, it is clear that the options proposed by the Government have no proper economic assessment underpinning them, no technology for an opt-out underpinning them and no enforcement mechanism proposed. It baffles me why the Conservative Opposition is not supporting these amendments, and I very much hope that the voices we have heard on the Conservative Benches will make sure that these amendments pass with acclamation.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for moving this incredibly important group and all those speakers who have made the arguments so clearly and powerfully. I pay tribute to noble Baroness’s work on copyright and AI, which is so important for our arts and culture sector. As noble Lords have rightly said, our cultural industries make an enormous contribution to our country, not just in cultural terms but in economic ones, and we must ensure that our laws do not put that future at risk. In the build-up to this debate I engaged with great pleasure with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and on these Benches we are sympathetic to her arguments. Her Amendment 61 would require the Government to make regulations in this area. We accept the Government’s assurance that this is something they will seek to address, and I note the Minister’s confirmation that their consultation will form the basis of the Government’s approach to this issue. Given the importance of getting this right, our view is that the Government’s consultation is in mid-flight, and we have to allow it to do its work. Whatever view we take of the design and the timing of the consultation, it offers for now a way forward that will evidence some of the serious concerns expressed here. That said, we will take a great interest in the progress and outcomes of the consultation and will come back to this in future should the Government’s approach prove unsatisfactory. Amendment 75 in my name also seeks to address the challenge that the growth in AI poses to our cultural industries. One of the key challenges in copyright and AI is enforceability. Copyright can be enforced only when we know it has been infringed. The size and the international distribution of AI training models render it extremely challenging to answer two fundamental questions today: first, was a given piece of content used in a training model and secondly, if so, in what jurisdiction did that use take place? If we cannot answer these questions, enforcement can become extremely hard, so a necessary, if not sufficient, part of the solution will be a digital watermark—a means of putting some red dye in the water where copyrighted material is used to train AIs. It could also potentially provide an automated means for content creators to opt out, with a vastly more manageable administrative burden. I thank the Minister for his constructive engagement on digital watermarking and look to him to give the House an assurance that the Government will bring forward a plan to develop a technological standard for a machine-readable digital watermark. I hope that, if and when he does so, he is able to indicate both a timeline and an intention to engage internationally. Subject to receiving such reassurances when he rises, I shall not move my amendment.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on her excellent speech. I know that she feels very strongly about this topic and the creative industries, as do I, but I also recognise what she said about junior Ministers. I have heard the many noble Lords who have spoken, and I hope they will forgive me if I do not mention everyone by name. It is vital that we get this right. We need to give creators better, easier and practical control over their rights, allow appropriate access to training material by AI firms and, most importantly, ensure there is real transparency in the system, something that is currently lacking. We need to do this so that we can guarantee the continued success of our creative industries and fully benefit from what AI will bring. I want to make it clear, as others have, that these two sectors are not mutually exclusive; it is not a case of picking sides. Many in the creative industries are themselves users or developers of AI technology. We want to ensure that the benefits of this powerful new technology are shared, which was a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and her committee. It is obvious that these are complex issues. We know that the current situation is unsatisfactory in practice for the creative industries and the AI sector. That is why we have launched a detailed consultation on what package of measures can be developed to benefit both the creative industries and the AI sector. This is a genuine consultation. Many people from a range of sectors are engaging with us to share their views and evidence. It is important, and indeed essential, that we fully consider all responses provided in the consultation before we act. Not to do so would be a disservice to all those who are providing important input and would narrow our chance to get the right solution. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness and many other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on the importance of transparency about the creative content used to train AI. Transparency, about both inputs and outputs, is a key objective in the Government’s consultation on copyright and AI. This very ability to provide transparency is at the centre of what is required. The consultation also contains two other vital objectives alongside transparency: practical and clear control and reward for rights holders over the use of their work. This is quite the opposite of the notion of giving away their hard work or theft. It is about increasing their control and ensuring access to data for AI training. The Government certainly agree with the spirit of the amendments on transparency and web crawlers and the aims they are trying to achieve—that creators should have more clarity over which web crawlers can access their works and be able to block them if they wish, and that they should be able to know what has been used and by whom and have mechanisms to be appropriately reimbursed. However, it would be premature to commit to very specific solutions at this stage of the consideration of the consultation. We want to consider these issues more broadly than the amendments before us, which do not take into account the fact that web crawling is not the only way AI models are trained. We also want to ensure that any future measures are not disproportionate for small businesses and individuals. There is a risk that legislating in this way will not be flexible enough to keep pace with rapid developments in the AI sector or new web standards. A key purpose of our consultation is to ensure that we have the full benefit of views on how to approach these issues, so that any legislation will be future-proof and able to deliver concrete and sustainable benefits for the creators. The preferred option in the consultation is one proposal; this is a consultation to try to find the right answer and all the proposals will be considered on their merits. The Government are also committed to ensuring that rights holders have real control over how their works are used. At the moment, many feel powerless over the use of their works by AI models. Our consultation considers technological and other means that can help to ensure that creators’ wishes are respected in practice. We want to work with industry to develop simple and reliable ways to do this that meet agreed standards, in reference to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose. Technical standards are an important part of this. There are technical standards that will be required to prevent web crawlers accessing certain datasets. Standards will be needed for control at the metadata level and for watermarking. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, that standards on the use of watermarks or metadata could have a number of benefits for those who wish to control or license the use of their content with AI. Standards on the use of web crawlers may also improve the ability of rights holders to prevent the use of their works against their wishes. We will actively support the development of new standards and the application of existing ones. We see this as a key part of what is needed. We do not intend to implement changes in this area until we are confident that they will work in practice and are easy to use. I also want to stress that our data mining proposals relate only to content that has been lawfully made available, so they will not apply to pirated copies. Existing copyright law will continue to apply to the outputs of AI models, as it does today. People will not be able to use AI as a cover for copyright piracy. With improved transparency and control over inputs, we expect that the likelihood of models generating infringing output will be greatly reduced.

18:15:00

The technical nature of these issues and their potential impact for rights holders and AI developers—we have heard this expressed very clearly—means that we need to consider them carefully. We also need to ensure that our approaches are compatible with, and indeed help shape, international solutions on transparency, access controls and metadata. That is why we are asking about all these elements in the consultation.

The question of how to achieve enforcement and compliance with any new approach is also of great importance. This is the subject of another amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. The Government do not believe in making changes to the status quo, unless they are confident that any new approach will work in practice. Appropriate measures for compliance and enforcement are a crucial part of that. We are open-minded to how exactly they should be achieved and we welcome responses as part of the consultation process.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised important points about copyright. As we grapple with these difficult questions in the UK, we cannot and should not ignore the position in other countries. Japan and Singapore view web crawling and data mining as “non-consumptive” of a copyrighted work, and so provide few if any restrictions on it. The USA considers “fair use” on a case-by-case basis, and multiple lawsuits are being considered with no clear pattern emerging. The EU also has an opt-out system, but one that is now having to evolve to incorporate exactly the types of transparency and ease of use that we have committed to as part of our consultation.

As a consequence of what is happening already, models are being trained on UK-owned content in other countries and this is likely to continue. We could legislate to make the UK’s approach to copyright the strictest in the world, but it would not change this reality worldwide. What it would do is make it harder to develop AI technology in the UK and models developed in other countries would no longer be available here. At the same time, many rights holders would still be unable to control use of their work or seek payment for it. We would have no ability to influence other approaches, such as the EU’s, or to shape international rules and standards.

We acknowledge that the EU’s approach does not currently meet our objectives and that further work is needed on transparency, standards and other areas. But new technologies and standards are in rapid development, and the international rules are already being shaped by others. We need to be at the table to make sure that they work for our creatives and AI industries in the UK.

Rest assured, the Government understand the very strong and legitimate concerns creators and rights holders have about how their content is used by the AI sector and how powerless they often feel. We want to create stronger, practical ways for them to control the use of content and greater transparency over how it is used, as well as creating the right conditions for AI innovation. There need to be workable solutions—workable for the creators as well as the AI companies.

I accept the important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, on the need for high-quality data in order to get the best outcomes. We are committed to addressing these challenges, as demonstrated by the detailed consultation we published before Christmas. Legislating on transparency, web crawlers, watermarks or other issues without evidence on their impact or the type of technologies, oversight and enforcement needed to make them work would be premature.

Of course there have been assessments of the impact. Indeed, an initial impact assessment was published alongside the consultation, but we absolutely recognise that more evidence is required. That is one of the calls we have made.

A point was made around jobs. Earlier this week, I attended the launch of the Pissarides report on the impact of AI on jobs across all sectors. This provides an extraordinarily potent and important piece of information to take into account as we take this forward. I will say in passing that the figures provided in the assessment of the AI industry came from a number of different sources, and we have used many different approaches to understanding the impact of the AI sector. The specific one asked about by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, was public first, and the methodology is in the public domain.

To further show our commitment on this issue, I will be pleased to update the House on progress and to set out next steps very soon after the consultation has closed on 25 February. Noble Lords may be aware that I called for early clarity on this matter in my 2023 review for the previous Government. I hope that we can move swiftly to reach much-needed certainty and fairness. I hope that noble Lords will allow us the chance to properly conclude our consultation process and bring forward comprehensive proposals as a result. As such, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, I want to return to the moment just before the Front-Bench speeches of the Opposition and the Government, when there was absolute agreement around the House. There were fantastic speeches from all sides, which understood AI not as competition but as a fellow traveller of the creative industries. I want to make that really clear, as all colleagues did around the House. I thank all noble Lords on both Benches who are being whipped not to vote for this for saying that they will support it. As I said at the outset, there are many hundreds of people watching this, and they want to know what the House is going to do to protect their future. I will not address my remarks to the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose; he knows what I think. For a Conservative Party not to act on the property rights of UK citizens is a crying shame. To the Government and the Minister —to whom I keep finding myself saying, “who I like very much”—I have to say that this is not good enough. The Minister used the word “premature” twice. There may be a dispute about 09 or 10, but we seem to be in agreement on the 17 over on our Benches. It is not premature to use the copyright law to protect the property rights of British citizens. I also noticed the slight slide around the preferred option. I am sorry, but to say it is a preferred option and then suggest that it is an open consultation is simply not correct. I also want to talk about this business of the impact assessment—and I am going to revisit this. I was in a meeting with officials, and I asked for the impact assessment. They said, “Well, there was one, but I don’t think it will suffice for you, Lady Kidron”. The reason it did not suffice for the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is because this impact assessment of AI on companies was just eight bullet points. If just one of the bullet points concerns this point about job losses and loss of income, I do not call that an impact assessment. To have a preferred option that is so catastrophic for our country’s second most effective industry—£126 billion down the drain for this magical £4.7 billion—means that I, like other noble Lords, do not understand what we are doing here. I can see that the Chamber is filling up. Finally, on this point about international law, we have heard it all before: we heard about data law, we heard about the OSA, we heard about competition law. I wonder whether, when they do an impact assessment, the Government might consider how many creative copyright owners might like to come to the UK to ply their trade when we have our copyright laws in full order. I remember one of the first reasons Canal+ gave for making its IPO in London was our copyright laws—and it has “Paddington”. I thank all noble Lords for speaking. They made tremendous speeches, which were educated, thoughtful and non-hysterical. These are very modest amendments, and this House has a duty to those people outside to vote on them. I will add that, at a personal level, in the 12 years I have been in your Lordships’ House I have done so many deals with the Government of the day, whichever Government that was. I have always tried to avoid voting, and I have never called a vote that I did not know I was going to win. Because of the whipping arrangements, I believe I will lose today, but we will vote. I invite those people who want the creative industries to know that we have their back to follow me through the Lobby. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

1|18:26|145|126|Division on Amendment 44A|Amendment 44A agreed.||0|0

18:37:00

Clause 101: Annual report on regulatory action

Amendment 45 not moved.

Amendment 46

Moved by

46: After Clause 104, insert the following new Clause— “Review of court jurisdictionWithin one year of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must review the impact that transferring the jurisdiction of courts that relate to all data protection provisions to tribunals would have on—(a) the complexity of the appeals system, and(b) legal barriers to representation and redress.”

My Lords, Amendment 46 seeks a review of court jurisdiction. As I said in Committee, the current system’s complexity leads to confusion regarding where to bring data protection claims—tribunals or courts? This is exacerbated by contradictory legal precedents from different levels of the judiciary, and it creates barriers for individuals seeking to enforce their rights. Transferring jurisdiction to tribunals would simplify the process and reduce costs for individuals, and it would align with the approach for statutory appeals against public bodies, which are typically handled by tribunals. In the Killock v Information Commissioner case, Mrs Justice Farbey explicitly called for a “comprehensive strategic review” of the appeal mechanisms for data protection rights. That is effectively what we seek to do with this amendment. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised concerns about transferring jurisdiction and introducing a new appeals regime. She argued that the tribunals lacked the capacity to handle complex data protection cases, but tribunals are, in fact, better suited to handle such matters due to their expertise and lower costs for individuals. Additionally, the volume of applications under Section 166—“Orders to progress complaints”—suggests significant demand for tribunal resolution, despite its current limitations. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also expressed concern about the potential for a new appeal right to encourage “vexatious challenges”, but introducing a tribunal appeal system similar to the Freedom of Information Act could actually help filter out unfounded claims. This is because the tribunal would have the authority to scrutinise cases and potentially dismiss those deemed frivolous. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, emphasised the existing judicial review process as a sufficient safeguard against errors by the Information Commissioner. However, judicial review is costly and complex, presenting a significant barrier for individuals. A tribunal system would offer a much more accessible and less expensive avenue for redress. I very much hope that, in view of the fact that this is a rather different amendment—it calls for a review—the Government will look at this. It is certainly called for by the judiciary, and I very much hope that the Government will take this on board at this stage.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for moving his amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to review the potential impact of transferring to tribunals the jurisdiction of courts that relate to all data protection provisions. As I argued in Committee, courts have a long-standing authority and expertise in resolving complex legal disputes, including data protection cases, and removing the jurisdiction of the courts could risk undermining the depth and breadth of legal oversight required in such critical areas. That said, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said in Committee, we have a mixed system of jurisdiction for legal issues relating to data, and tribunals have an important role to play. So, although we agree with the intentions behind the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, we do not support the push to transfer all data protection provisions from the courts to tribunals, as we believe that there is still an important role for courts to play. Given the importance of the role of the courts in resolving complex cases, we do not feel that this review is necessary.

My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I wonder whether he has actually read the amendment; it calls for a review, not for transfer. I think that his speech is a carryover from Committee.

A review to the end, set out by the noble Lord.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for Amendment 46. It would require a review of the impact of transferring all data protection-related cases to the relevant tribunals. Currently there is a mixture of jurisdictions for tribunals and courts for data protection cases, depending on the nature of the proceedings. This is on the basis that certain claims are deemed appropriate for tribunal, while others are appropriate for courts, where stricter rules of evidence and procedure apply—for example, in dealing with claims by data subjects against controllers for compensation due to breaches of data protection legislation. As such, the current system already provides clear and appropriate administrative and judicial redress routes for data subjects seeking to exercise their rights. Tribunals are in many cases the appropriate venue for data protection proceedings, including appeals by controllers against enforcement action or applications by data subjects for an order that the ICO should progress a complaint. Claims by individuals against businesses or other organisations for damages arising from breach of data protection law fall under the jurisdiction of courts rather than tribunals. This is appropriate, given the likely disparity between the resources of the respective parties, because courts apply stricter rules of evidence and procedures than tribunals. While court proceedings can, of course, be more costly, successful parties can usually recover their costs, which would not always be the case in tribunals. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that there is a rationale for these different routes and that a review to consider transfer of jurisdictions to tribunals is therefore not necessary at this time.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that dusty reply. I wonder whether he has been briefed about particular legal cases, such as Killock or Delo, where the judiciary themselves were confused about the nature of the different jurisdictions of tribunal and court. The Minister and, indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, seemed to make speeches on the basis that all is wonderful and the jurisdiction of the courts and tribunals is so clearly defined that we do not need a review. That is not the case and, if the Minister were better briefed about the obiter, if not the judgments, in Delo and Killock, he might appreciate that there is considerable confusion about jurisdiction, as several judges have commented. I am very disappointed by the Minister’s reply. I think that there will be several judges jumping up and down, considering that he has not really looked at the evidence. The Minister always says that he is very evidence-based. I very much hope that he will take another look at this—or, if he does not, that the MoJ will—as there is considerably greater merit in the amendment than he accords. However, I shall not press this to a vote and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 46 withdrawn.

18:45:00

Amendment 47

Moved by

47: After Clause 107, insert the following new Clause— “Data use: defences to charges under the Computer Misuse Act 1990(1) The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is amended as follows.(2) In section 1, after subsection (3) insert— “(4) It is a defence to a charge under subsection (1) to prove that—(a) the person’s actions were necessary for the detection or prevention of crime, or(b) the person’s actions were justified as being in the public interest.”(3) In section 3, after subsection (6) insert—“(7) It is a defence to a charge under subsection (1) in relation to an act carried out for the intention in subsection (2)(b) or (c) to prove that—(a) the person’s actions were necessary for the detection or prevention of crime, or(b) the person’s actions were justified as being in the public interest.””Member’s explanatory statement This amendment updates the definition of “unauthorised access” in the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to provide clearer legal protections for legitimate cybersecurity activities.

My Lords, in moving Amendment 47, I shall speak also to Amendment 48. Here we are again: the Computer Misuse Act 1990 is another year older. It was put into statute at a time when technology looked nothing like it did 10 or 20 years ago, never mind today. I will give some brief facts. We have a fantastic cyber sector in our country, which adds so much to our economy and safety. The Computer Misuse Act constrains the sector from keeping us as safe as it might and constrains businesses in terms of their growth and what they could be adding today to our economy in terms of—yes—growth. There is no reason for us to continue with the Computer Misuse Act when we have the solution in our hands, set out, I suggest, in Amendments 47 and 48. Our cyber- security professionals, often working way out of sight, for obvious reasons, do such important work and professionally, diligently, keep us safe and keep our country, assets and economy secure. When the Minister responds, will he say, even sotto voce, that a Division on these amendments might help him in his discussions within the department to get some movement on this issue? We heard in previous debates how doing this would be premature and how the time was not now. Well, for a statute that came into being at the beginning of the 1990s, I suggest that it is high time that we made these amendments for individuals, for businesses, for our economy and for our society, in an extraordinarily uncertain world and at a time when I imagine that every Minister should be looking to every potential source of economic growth. I look forward to the debate and to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

My Lords, in Committee, the noble Baroness the Minister said there was no consensus on the best way forward to amend the law to provide protection for ethical hackers trying to work against cybercrime. All I ask is that noble Lords should read the amendment, which says: “It is a defence to a charge … to prove that … the person’s actions were necessary for the detection or prevention of crime or … the person’s actions were justified as being in the public interest”. What on earth could be wrong with that? I support my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond.

My Lords, I too support this. I well remember the passage of the Computer Misuse Act, and we were deeply unhappy about some of its provisions defining hacker tools et cetera, because they had nothing about intention. The Government simply said, “Yes, they will be committing an offence, but we will just ignore it if they are good people”. Leaving it to faceless people in some Civil Service department to decide who is good or bad, with nothing in the Bill, is not very wise. We were always deeply unhappy about it but had to go along with it because we had to have something; otherwise, we could not do anything about hacking tools being freely available. We ended up with a rather odd situation where there is no defence against being a good guy. This is a very sensible amendment to clean up an anomaly that has been sitting in our law for a long time and should probably have been cleaned up a long time ago.

My Lords, I support Amendments 47 and 48, which I was delighted to see tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Arbuthnot. I have long argued for changes to the Computer Misuse Act. I pay tribute to the CyberUp campaign, which has been extremely persistent in advocating these changes. The CMA was drafted some 35 years ago—an age ago in computer technology—when internet usage was much lower and cybersecurity practices much less developed. This makes the Act in its current form unfit for the modern digital landscape and inhibits security professionals from conducting legitimate research. I will not repeat the arguments made by the two noble Lords. I know that the Minister, because of his digital regulation review, is absolutely apprised of this issue, and if he were able to make a decision this evening, I think he would take them on board. I very much hope that he will express sympathy for the amendments, however he wishes to do so—whether by giving an undertaking to bring something back at Third Reading or by doing something in the Commons. Clearly, he knows what the problem is. This issue has been under consideration for a long time, in the bowels of the Home Office—what worse place is there to be?—so I very much hope that the Minister will extract the issue and deal with it as expeditiously as he can.

I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes for tabling the amendment in this group. I, too, believe these amendments would improve the Bill. The nature of computing and data processing has fundamentally changed since the Computer Misuse Act 1990. Third parties hold and process immense quantities of data, and the means of accessing and interacting with that data have become unrecognisably more sophisticated. Updating the definition of unauthorised computer access through Amendment 48 is a sensible reform, as this new definition takes into account that data controllers and processors now hold substantial quantities of personal data. These entities are responsible for the security of the data they hold, so their provisions on access become legally relevant and this amendment reflects this. When updating an offence, it is equally necessary to consider the legal defences, as my noble friend has rightly done in Amendment 47 by protecting individuals accessing information to detect or prevent a crime or whose actions are in the public interest. We on these Benches feel these amendments are wholly sensible. I urge the Minister to listen to the persuasive argument that my noble friend Lord Holmes has made and consider how we can deliver these improvements to our data legislation.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for raising this topic through Amendments 47 and 48. I am very aware of this issue and understand the strength of feeling about reforming the Computer Misuse Act, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, rightly pointed out, when I was the Government Chief Scientific Adviser I conducted a review making recommendations on pro-innovation regulation of technologies and I made recommendations on the issues these amendments raise. These recommendations were accepted by the previous Government. The Government are actively taking forward these recommendations as part of the Act’s ongoing review. These issues are, of course, complex and require careful consideration. The introduction of these specific amendments could unintentionally pose more risk to the UK’s cybersecurity, not least by inadvertently creating a loophole for cybercriminals to exploit to defend themselves against a prosecution. Our engagement with stakeholders has revealed differing views, even among industry. While some industry partners highlight the noble Lord’s view that the Computer Misuse Act may prevent legitimate public interest activity, others have concerns about the unintended consequences. Law enforcement has considerable concerns that allowing unauthorised access to systems under the pretext of identifying vulnerabilities could be exploited by cybercriminals. Without robust safeguards and oversight, this amendment could significantly hinder investigations and place a burden on law enforcement partners to establish whether a person’s actions were in the public interest. Further work is required to consider the safeguards that would need to accompany any introduction of statutory defences. The Government will continue to work with the cybersecurity industry, the National Cyber Security Centre and law enforcement agencies on this issue. The Home Office will provide an update in due course, once the proposals have been finalised—or, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, they will pop out of the bowels of the Home Office in due course. With these reassurances in mind, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in this short debate. I was really hoping that we would not hear the phrase “the bowels of the Home Office” twice, but we did—now we have heard it three times. Perhaps it could be the title of somebody’s autobiography. I do not know whose, but I claim the IP rights even though the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said it first. I am grateful for the Minister’s response. It would probably have been better to have some sense of timeline; much of what he said was very much what we heard in Committee. We are all amenable to having a course of action, but it needs more objectives attached to it as to when we are likely to see some consequences, action and changes. As every day goes by, as the Minister is well aware, risks go unchecked that could be checked, people are less safe who could be made safe and economic growth, the Government’s priority, is prevented which could be enabled. For now, I will withdraw my amendment, but I am minded to see what is possible between now and Third Reading, because the time is now; otherwise, “in due course” will be even longer than the official statement “later in the summer”. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 47 withdrawn.

Amendment 48 not moved.

Clause 109: Interpretation of the PEC Regulations

Amendment 48A

Moved by

48A: Clause 109, page 139, line 19, at end insert— ““service message” means a communication necessary for an administrative or servicing purpose including the performance of a contract to which the recipient is party, or in order to take steps at the request of the recipient prior to entering into a contract which does not contain any direct marketing content;“regulatory communication” means a communication necessary for the compliance with a legal obligation or legislative measure, including those provided by a statutory regulator, which aims to improve customer outcomes and avoids active promotion or encouragement where possible following careful assessment of the risk of harms caused, or likely to be caused, to the recipient;”

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 50A. I have sent the Government a reasonably lengthy explanation of what I am up to here, so I will restrict myself to a summary for the purposes of Report. To my mind, there is a necessary distinction between a service message and a regulatory communication. A service message is to do with an existing contract, and you do not want them full of marketing material, but regulatory communications often have to contain something that would be judged by the ICO as marketing material—they are required to. Under those circumstances, there should be a required balancing between harms: the harm of not complying with what the regulator would like and the harm of issuing a marketing communication without permission. This is never going to be simple. It is always going to be case-by-case, but we should recognise that there are times when regulators want to encourage people to take particular actions and want the service providers to be part of that. We should allow for that in the wording of the Bill. I beg to move.

19:00:00

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 48B. In our view, cookie paywalls create an unfair choose for users, essentially forcing them to pay for privacy. We tabled an amendment in Committee to ban cookie paywalls, but in the meantime, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, heralded at the time, the Information Commissioner’s Office has provided updated guidance on the “consent or pay” model for cookie compliance. It is now available for review. This guidance clarifies how organisations can offer users a choice between accepting personalised ads for free access or paying for an ad-free experience while ensuring compliance with data protection laws. It has confirmed that the “consent or pay” model is acceptable for UK publishers, provided certain conditions are met. Key requirements for a valid consent under this model include: users must have genuine free choice; the alternative to consent—that is, payment—must be reasonably priced; and users must be fully informed about their options. The guidance is, however, contradictory. On the one hand, it says that cookie paywalls “can be compliant with data protection law” and that providers must document their assessments of how it is compliant with DPL. On the other, it says that, to be compliant with data protection law, cookie paywalls must allow users to choose freely without detriment. However, users who do not wish to pay the fee to access a website will be subject to detriment, because with a cookie paywall they will pay a fee if they wish to refuse consent. This is addressed as the “power imbalance”. It is also worth noting that this guidance does not constitute legal advice; it leaves significant latitude for legal interpretation and argument as to the compatibility of cookie paywalls with data protection law. The core argument against “consent or pay” models is that they undermine the principle of freely given consent. The ICO guidance emphasises that organisations using these models must be able to demonstrate that users have a genuine choice and are not unfairly penalised for refusing to consent to data processing for personalised advertising. Yet in practice, given the power imbalance, on almost every occasion this is not possible. This amendment seeks to ensure that individuals maintain control over their personal data. By banning cookie paywalls, users can freely choose not to consent to cookies without having to pay a fee. I very much hope that the Government will reconsider the ICO’s guidance in particular, and consider banning cookie paywalls altogether.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for introducing this group. Amendments 48A and 50A, in his name, would ensure that regulated professionals, including financial services firms, are able to comply with current and future regulatory requirements. The example my noble friend has given—the FCA’s expectation that firms communicate effectively with consumers—is a good one. Clearly, we must avoid a circumstance where regulators expect businesses to take action that is not possible due to limiting legislation governing data use and access. My noble friend has made a forceful case and I hope the Government will be able to give the House appropriate assurance that businesses will not be put in this position as a result of this legislation. Amendment 48B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seeks to ban cookie paywalls. I opposed a similar amendment when we debated it in Committee as it actually seeks to curtail choice. Currently, users have the options to pay money and stay private, share personal data and read for free, or walk away. Faced with these options, for instance, I have sadly chosen to forgo my regular evening reading of the Daily Mail’s excellent sports pages, but I see no reason why that newspaper, or anyone else, should be compelled to provide anything for free. In fact, it has been very persuasively argued by Jaron Lanier, Shoshana Zuboff and many others that it is the fact that so much of the internet is apparently, but not actually, free that has caused a great deal of damage, rather than having an open charging model. This approach finally reveals the exact cash value of individuals’ data that websites are harvesting and offers users choice. We do not agree with attempts to remove that choice.

My Lords, I will start with Amendments 48A and 50A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The Government are aware that some financial services firms have raised concerns that the direct marketing rules in the privacy and electronic communications regulations prevent them supporting consumers in some instances. I appreciate the importance of the support that financial services firms provide to their customers to help them make informed decisions on matters such as their financial investments. The Government and the FCA are working closely together to improve the support available to consumers. In December, the FCA launched an initial consultation on a new type of support for consumers with their investments and pensions called “targeted support”. Through this consultation, the FCA will seek feedback on any interactions of the proposals and direct marketing rules. As my noble friend Lady Jones explained in the debate in Grand Committee, firms can already provide service or regulatory communication messages to their customers without permission, provided these messages are neutral in tone, factual and do not include promotional content. Promotional content can be sent if a consumer consents to receiving direct marketing. Messages which are not directed to a particular individual, such as online adverts shown to everyone who views a website, are also not prevented by the rules. I hope this explanation and the fact that there is ongoing work provide some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the Government are actively looking into this issue, and that, as such, he is content to withdraw his amendment. Amendment 48B from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is aimed at banning cookie paywalls. These generally work by giving web users the option to pay for a cookie-free browsing experience. Many websites are funded by advertising, and some publishers think that people should pay for a viewing experience without personalised advertising. As he rightly pointed out, the ICO released updated guidance on how organisations can deploy “consent or pay” models while still ensuring that consent is “freely given”. The guidance is detailed and outlines important factors that organisations should consider in order to operate legally. We encourage businesses to read this guidance and respond accordingly. I note the important points that the noble Lord makes, and the counterpoints made by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose. The Government will continue to engage with businesses, the ICO and users on these models, and on the guidance, but we do not think there is currently a case for taking action to ban the practice. I therefore hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I will, for the moment, be content to know that the Government are continuing to discuss this. There is a real problem here that will need to be dealt with, but if the Government are engaged they will inevitably find themselves having to deal with it. There are some occasions in regulatory messages where you need to make options clear: “You need to do this or something else will happen and you’ll really disadvantage yourself”. The regulator will expect that, particularly where things such as pensions are concerned, but it is clearly a marketing message. It will be difficult to be resolved, but I am happy to trust the Government to have a go at it and not to try to insist on the particular formulation of these amendments. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 48A withdrawn.

Schedule 12: Storing information in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user

Amendment 48B not moved.

Amendment 49

Moved by

49: After Clause 112, insert the following new Clause— “Use of electronic mail for direct marketing by charities(1) Regulation 22 of the PEC Regulations (use of electronic mail for direct marketing purposes) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (2), after “paragraph (3)” insert “or (3A)”.(3) After paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) A charity may send or instigate the sending of electronic mail for the purposes of direct marketing where—(a) the sole purpose of the direct marketing is to further one or more of the charity’s charitable purposes;(b) the charity obtained the contact details of the recipient of the electronic mail in the course of the recipient—(i) expressing an interest in one or more of the purposes that were the charity’s charitable purposes at that time; or(ii) offering or providing support to further one or more of those purposes; and(c) the recipient has been given a simple means of refusing (free of charge except for the costs of the transmission of the refusal) the use of their contact details for the purposes of direct marketing by the charity, at the time that the details were initially collected, and, where the recipient did not initially refuse the use of the details, at the time of each subsequent communication.”(4) After paragraph (4) insert—“(5) In this regulation, “charity” means—(a) a charity as defined in section 1(1) of the Charities Act 2011,(b) a charity as defined in section 1(1) of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 (c. 12 (N.I.)), including an institution treated as such a charity for the purposes of that Act by virtue of the Charities Act 2008 (Transitional Provision) Order (Northern Ireland) 2013 (S.R. (N.I.) 2013 No. 211), and (c) a body entered in the Scottish Charity Register, other than a body which no longer meets the charity test in section 7 of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 10),and, in relation to such a charity, institution or body, “charitable purpose” has the meaning given in the relevant Act.””Member’s explanatory statement Regulation 22 of the PEC Regulations prohibits the transmission, by means of electronic mail, of unsolicited communications to individual subscribers. This amendment creates an exception from the prohibition for direct marketing carried out by a charity for charitable purposes.

Amendment 49 agreed.

Amendments 50 and 50A not moved.

Clause 123: Information for research about online safety matters

Amendment 51

Moved by

51: Clause 123, page 153, line 14, leave out “may by regulations” and insert “must, as soon as reasonably practicable and no later than 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed, make and lay regulations to” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s discretion on whether to lay regulations under Clause 123 and sets a time limit for laying them before Parliament.

My Lords, these amendments have to do with research access for online safety. Having sat on the Joint Committee of the draft Online Safety Bill back in 2021, I put on record that I am delighted that the Government have taken the issue of research access to data very seriously. It was a central plank of what we suggested and it is fantastic that they have done it. Of the amendments in my name, Amendment 51 would simply ensure that the provisions of Clause 123 are acted on by removing the Government’s discretion as to whether they introduce regulations. It also introduces a deadline of 12 months for the Government to do so. Amendment 53 seeks to ensure that the regulators will enable independent researchers to research how online risks and harms impact different groups, especially vulnerable users, including children. Given the excitements we have already had this evening, I do not propose to press any of them, but I would like to hear from the Minister that he has heard me and that the Government will seek to enshrine the principle of different ages, different stages, different people, when he responds. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who has the other amendments in this group, to which I added my name, is not in his place, but I understand that he has sought—and got—reassurance on his amendments. So there is just one remaining matter on which I would like further reassurance: the scope of the legal privilege exception. A letter from the Minister on 10 January explains: “The clause restates the existing law on legally privileged information as a reassurance that regulated services will not be asked to break the existing legislation on the disclosure of this type of data”. It seems that the Minister has veered tantalisingly close to answering my question, but not in a manner that I can quite understand. So I would really love to understand—and I would be grateful to the Minister if he would try to explain to me—how the Government will prevent tech companies using legal privilege as a shield. Specifically, would CCing a lawyer on every email exchange, or having a lawyer in every team, allow companies to prevent legitimate scrutiny of their safety record? I have sat in Silicon Valley headquarters and each team came with its own lawyer—I would really appreciate clarity on this issue. I beg to move.

My Lords, I can only support what the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, had to say. This is essentially unfinished business from the Online Safety Act, which we laboured in the vineyard to deliver some time ago. These amendments aim to strengthen Clause 123 and try to make sure that this actually happens and that we do not get the outcomes of the kind that the noble Baroness has mentioned. I, too, have read the letter from the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. It is hedged about with a number of qualifications, so I very much hope that the Minister will cut through it and give us some very clear assurances, because I must say that I veer back and forth when I read the paragraphs. I say, “There’s a win”, and then the next paragraph kind of qualifies it, so perhaps the Minister will give us true clarity when he responds.

My Lords, I wanted to add something, having spent a lot of time on Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act, which after many assurances and a couple of years, the Executive decided not to implement, against the wishes of Parliament. It worries me when the Executive suddenly feel that they can do those sorts of things. I am afraid that leopards sometimes do not change their spots, and I would hate to see this happen again, so Amendment 51 immediately appeals. Parliament needs to assert its authority.

19:15:00

Ministers here and in another place need to remember that, while they are in Parliament, they are making laws to control their successors as well as their departments. They are not really sitting in here as part of their departments. They may be heads of those departments, but the laws they pass are to control their departments and themselves, and we need to remember that from time to time. What happened over the Digital Economy Act was shameful and the Executive should hang their head in shame and pass something such as this to show their good will in the future.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for introducing this group, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, for their comments and contributions—particularly the salutary words of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, on the role of the Executive here, which were very enlightening. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that Parliament should have the opportunity to scrutinise this secondary legislation. Online safety research is essential: as our lives become more and more digital, we must assess how it impacts us as people, and especially children, who are particularly vulnerable to online harms. This cannot be achieved unless researchers are able to access the unadulterated raw data. Therefore, I am sure that noble Lords—and our colleagues in the other place—would wish to scrutinise the legislation creating this access to ensure it is fit for purpose. This is why I support the spirit of Amendment 51. Following on from this point, facilitating online harms research by making access requests enforceable under a pre-existing online safety regime, as per Amendment 52, certainly seems to me like a sensible measure. It would enable this vital research, as would Amendment 54, which removes the need to create a bespoke enforcement system for online safety research access. Amendment 53 would also enable independent research into how online risks and harms impact different groups. This information would be extremely valuable to a broad range of stakeholders including social media platforms, data controllers, schools and parents and parliamentarians. It would help us all identify groups who are at heightened risk of online harm, what type of harm they are at risk of, which measures have reduced this risk, which have exacerbated it and what we can all do to reduce this danger. There are many people undertaking online safety research across the globe and we should look to help these researchers access data for the purposes of safety research, even if their location is outside the UK. Of course, adequate safeguards would need to be in place, which may be dictated to some extent by the location of the researcher. However, online safety research is a benefit for all of us and Amendment 55 would keep barriers to this research to a minimum. I am sure we would all like to think that all data holders and processors would wish to assist with prevention of online harms. However, where commercial and moral imperatives compete, we sadly cannot always count on the latter winning out. Therefore, Amendment 56 is a sensible addition that would prevent contractual exclusion of research access on online safety grounds, ensuring that online safety risks cannot be hidden or obscured.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for the amendments on researchers’ access to data for online safety research, an incredibly important topic. It is clear from Committee that the Government’s proposals in this clause are broadly welcomed. They will ensure that researchers can access the vital data they need to undertake an analysis of online safety risks to UK users, informing future online safety interventions and keeping people safe online. Amendment 51 would compel the Secretary of State to make regulations for a researcher access framework, and to do so within 12 months. While I am sympathetic to the spirit of the noble Baroness’s amendment, a fixed 12-month timescale and requirement to make regulations may risk compressing the time and options available to develop the most effective and appropriate solution, as my noble friend Lady Jones outlined in Committee. Getting this right is clearly important. While we are committed to introducing a framework as quickly as possible, we do not want to compromise its quality. We need adequate time to ensure that the framework is fit for purpose, appropriately safeguarded and future-proofed for a fast-evolving technological environment. As required by the Online Safety Act, Ofcom is currently preparing a report into the ways in which researchers can access data and the barriers that they face, as well as exploring how additional access might be achieved. This report will be published in July of this year. We are also committed to conducting a thorough consultation on the issue prior to any enforceable requirements coming into force. The Government intend to consult on the framework as soon as practicable after the publication of Ofcom’s report this summer. Sufficient time is required for a thorough consultation with the wide range of interested stakeholders in this area, including the research community, civil society and industry. I know that the noble Baroness raised a concern in Committee that the Government would rely on Ofcom’s report to set the framework for the regime, but I can assure her that a robust evidence-gathering process is already under way. The framework will be informed by collaboration with key stakeholders and formal consultation, as well as being guided by evidence from Ofcom’s report on the matter. Once all interested parties have had their say and the consultation is completed, the Government expect to make regulations to install the framework. It is right that the Government commit to a full consultation process and do not seek to prejudge the outcomes of that process by including a mandatory requirement for regulations now. Amendment 53 would seek to expand the list of examples of the types of provision that the regulations might make. Clause 123 gives non-exhaustive examples of what may be included in future regulations; it certainly does not limit those regulations to the examples given. Given the central importance of protecting children and vulnerable users online, a key aim of any future regulations would be to support researchers to conduct research into the different ways that various groups of people experience online safety, without the need for this amendment. Indeed, a significant driving force for establishing this framework in the first place is to improve the quality of research that is possible to understand the risks to users online, particularly those faced by children. I acknowledge the point that the noble Baroness made about people of all ages. We would be keen to discuss this further with her as we consult on specific requirements as part of developing regulations. I will touch on the point about legal privilege. We believe that routinely copying a lawyer on to all emails and documents is not likely to attract legal privilege. Legal privilege protects communication specifically between legal advisers and their clients being created for the purpose of giving or receiving legal advice, or for the sole or dominant purpose of litigation. It would not be satisfactory just to copy everyone on everything. We are confident that we can draft regulations that will make it entirely clear that the legal right to data for research purposes cannot be avoided by tech companies seeking to rely on contractual provisions that purport to prevent the sharing of data for research purposes. Therefore, there is no need for a specific requirement in the Bill to override a terms of service.

I thank the Minister for his very full answer. My legal adviser on my right—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd—let me know that I was in a good place here. I particularly welcome the Minister’s invitation to discuss Ofcom’s review and the consultation. Perhaps he would not mind if I brought some of my researcher friends with me to that meeting. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 51 withdrawn.

Amendments 52 to 56 not moved.

19:25:00

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.07 pm.