Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Commons Reasons

15:33:00

Motion A

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendment 32, on which the Commons have insisted for their Reason 32D, and do not insist on its Amendments 32B and 32C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement, to which the Commons have disagreed for the same Reason.

32D: Because it is not appropriate to require the Secretary of State, in preparing the DVS trust framework, to carry out an assessment of whether listed public authorities reliably ascertain sex data.

My Lords, I will also speak to Motions B and D. This first group is concerned with amendments relating to sex and gender in digital verification services, the data dictionary and scientific research. In relation to digital verification services and the data dictionary, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for his continued engagement on the issue of sex data. Although we are not dealing with amendments in lieu today, I will take this opportunity to address some misunderstandings that I fear sit behind the concerns of noble Lords which were raised in previous debates. This Bill does not create one digital identity app or system that lists attributes such as gender that those wanting to verify information about someone are required to accept. Instead, it creates a legislative structure of standards, governance and oversight for digital verification services. It is possible to create a reusable digital identity. However, when an organisation chooses to use a DVS, it will enter into a contract with that provider; that contract will specify which attributes the organisation needs to verify and how the DVS will do it. Reusable digital identities can therefore be reused only when an organisation accepts in writing that they meet its needs. If a reusable digital identity verified gender, it could not be used to verify biological sex in cases where that was needed instead. Where a public authority is using a DVS, it remains the case that a contract will have to be entered into. This will again set out what types of information the DVS will be able to make checks against and for what purpose. This will ensure it is explicitly clear what information is being verified when a DVS relies on public authority data released through the information gateway. I hope this reassures noble Lords that gender data could not and would not be used to verify biological sex. Similarly, individuals would not be able to reuse a digital ID verifying gender to verify biological sex. It is for these reasons that I have laid the Motions to agree with the elected House, which removed Lords Amendments 32B, 32C, 52B and 52C. I am grateful to the Opposition for accepting the assurances offered and not tabling a Motion to insist on the previous amendments. In response to last week’s debate, I would like to respond to concerns raised by a few noble Lords around public data when sex and gender data appear in the same field. Existing legislation already requires those processing personal data to ensure that the data they process is accurate for the purpose for which it is being used. This means that personal data processed as part of a digital verification check must be appropriate for the specific requirements of that check. The contracts I have mentioned are a way to ensure compliance with this principle. Any personal data passed through the information gateway to DVS providers is a new instance of data processing, and therefore the data accuracy principle is reapplied. That principle requires that the personal data must not be misleading, which is of particular relevance given that public authorities will be sharing data for verification purposes. As Minister Bryant set out in the other place, if the Government identify an instance where a public authority is sharing gender data in a way that is misleading as to the fact that it cannot be used to verify biological sex, they will of course respond appropriately. In light of these reassurances and noting the clearly expressed view of the other place on these issues, I hope noble Lords will agree with Motion A. On scientific research and Amendment 43B, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for the time he has afforded the Government on this issue and for our productive meeting last week. I hope to reassure him and other noble Lords that there are, as we have argued throughout, sufficient protections against the potential misuse of the term “scientific research”. It is not the effect of the provisions to provide blanket approval of the reuse of personal data for AI training under the banner of scientific research. The policy intention behind the clauses is not to enable the reuse of personal data for AI training unless it is for genuine scientific research, which is set out in the criteria in the ICO guidance. As part of its Bill implementation work, the ICO will prepare revised guidance around processing for research purposes. I expect this will cover information on compliance for data protection principles, including the fairness and purpose limitation principles. This will include the reasonable expectations of data subjects for AI model training when it constitutes genuine scientific research. As with the previous topic, I have tabled Motion B to agree with the Commons on this issue. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for not tabling an amendment in lieu. On this basis, I hope noble Lords will also agree with Motion B and secure the continued success of the UK’s scientific research sector. I beg to move.

My Lords, when I was Opposition Chief Whip in another place, I was never really sure whether it was my job to make sure that legislation was as good as possible for the good of the country or as bad as possible in order to make sure that the Government were not re-elected. With this Bill, we have done our best to make sure that this legislation is better but, I am afraid, without success. The noble Lord, Lord Vallance, said that you could not end up with two different sources of digital verification that showed two different biological sexes. Will the noble Baroness the Minister confirm that, because of the muddle that has existed for years on this, you could have two documents that are different: one document saying one gender and another saying the other? This Bill is a missed opportunity, although I shall not seek to divide the House on Motion A.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. In view of the remarks made a week ago by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, who referred to government datasets from the past 15 years which mixed up sex and gender as “accurate”—or perhaps “sort of accurate”, because the exchange in the report varied slightly—do the Government defend the accuracy of those datasets, even though they were, and continue to be, muddled because no one knew what “sex” meant? Are we expected to rely on the accuracy of data which mixed up sex and gender—that is, male and female—or do the Government mean that we cannot defend those data because they were only sort of accurate? I am not entirely clear what the Government are telling us about relying on historic data. I am also concerned about what insight this gives into what the Government intend to regard as accurate from now on. I continue to think that the Government are on quite a sticky wicket in regard to data accuracy on sex and gender and their refusal to enshrine true sex accuracy in this Bill. We continue to have a bit of a fudge, which shakes confidence in their intentions. This is a huge missed opportunity, but I realise we are not having a further vote. I shall ask just one question. Clause 29 allows for the Secretary of State to publish supplementary codes for DVS providers. Will the Government commit to publishing a supplementary code to ensure that DVS providers understand how to verify sex accurately and avoid what has been described by the Government Benches as the “muddle” of the last 15 years?

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate. I will first speak to the issues around accurate recording of sex data before coming on to talk about scientific research. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have been clear that digital verification services will be a significant driver of data reliability and productivity. They are absolutely dependent on accurate recording and rigorous management of data. We supported my noble friend Lord Lucas in his original amendments on Report, and we tabled our own amendments from the Front Bench for Lords consideration of Commons amendments last week. I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement on this issue, and I know she has taken our concerns seriously. That said, we remain concerned about the accurate recording and management of sex data, especially in light of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court. The Government must continue to remain vigilant and to take steps to ensure datasets held by the Government and arm’s-length bodies are, and continue to be, accurate.

15:45:00

On the definition of scientific research, I should put on record my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who has led on this. We absolutely recognise the points he has been raising, and his amendments have been both inventive and constructive, trying to deliver a better definition of scientific research on the face of the Bill. I am pleased that Ministers have engaged with him on this problem.

Despite our remaining concerns on both those issues, we feel we have made our views clear to Ministers and, although they have chosen not to act—which, I am afraid, we believe they may come to regret—we must be responsible in our scrutiny. We will not, therefore, oppose the Government’s Motions today.

My Lords, despite the fact this is not being pushed to a vote—I respect that, and I concede that the Government have made some clarifications, and potentially concessions, along the way in this debate—I think that the issue is not yet resolved. I call on the Government to try to solve this problem now, rather than leave it open to more years of muddle, confusion and misinterpretation, and that can happen away from here. I have noticed that the Government are not averse to using the odd statutory instrument, to which I am usually opposed; in this instance, I urge them to use a statutory instrument to sort this out. I fear that, unless they do, it will undermine trust in the new system. To clarify, we are looking to identify datasets that have muddled up sex and gender, such as data from HMPO and the DVLA, and those that have not, such as sex registered at birth. Because of that muddle, we cannot rely on those databases. Is that not the very point? We are trying at this point to provide clarity to DVS providers. By the way, this would not in any way result in outing individual transgender people when they are using the DVS system to prove their identity or other attributes, such as their age or whatever. We are trying to ensure that each database has some consistency. If a dataset allows some people to be recorded as the wrong sex, then the whole dataset is unreliable as a source of sex data. It was very helpful that the Government clarified in the midst of this, for example, that an official document such as a passport, whatever is written on it, cannot be proof of a change of sex; it is simply a record of the way somebody wants to be identified and is no use as a reliable source of sex data. As I have said, there are other official documents such as the driving licence where that is not the case. I would simply urge the Government, from their own point of view, so that we do not carry on having this muddle and confusion and so that this system becomes trusted, to make sure that they sort this out, even if they will not do so here and now.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her engagement and for defining what genuine scientific research is. I hope very much that the AI companies, when using this extraordinary exemption, will listen to the Government, and that the Government will ensure that the policy is enforced. The trust of the people of this country would be lost if they felt that their data was being reused by AI companies simply for product enrichment and profit, rather than for genuine scientific research. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their parties’ support.

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her introduction to the three Motions in this group. On these Benches, we welcome the Supreme Court’s judgment on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010. However, as Ministers have stressed—and we agree—it is paramount that we work through the implications of this judgment carefully and sensitively. As we have previously discussed, the EHRC is currently updating its statutory guidance. Ministers have previously given assurances that they are engaged in appropriate and balanced work on data standards and data accuracy, and we accept those assurances. They have given a further assurance today about how the digital verification services framework will operate. We rely on those ministerial assurances. In summary, we believe that the previously proposed amendments were premature in the light of the EHRC guidance and that they risk undermining existing data standards work. On that basis, we support the Minister in her Motions A and D. Turning to Motion B, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, will not press his Amendment 43B at this stage, as he intends to accept the assurances given by Ministers. We have consistently supported the noble Viscount’s efforts to ensure that scientific research benefiting from the Bill’s provisions for data reuse is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks. The Government have given significant assurances in this area. We understand that their position is that the Bill does not alter the existing legal definition or threshold for what constitutes scientific research under UK GDPR. The Bill does not grant any new or expanded permissions for the reuse of data for scientific research purposes, and, specifically, it does not provide blanket approval for using personal data for training AI models under the guise of scientific research. The use of personal data for scientific research remains subject to the comprehensive safeguards of UK GDPR, including the requirement for a lawful basis, the adherence to data protection principles and the application of the reasonableness test, which requires an objective assessment. The collection of assurances given during several stages of the Bill provides reassurance against the risk that commercial activities, such as training AI models purely for private gain, could improperly benefit from exemptions intended for genuine scientific research serving the public good. I very much hope that the Minister can reaffirm these specific points and repeat those assurances.

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government are progressing workstreams focused on the accuracy and reliability of sex data in public authority datasets in a holistic and measured manner, as I have described in previous debates. We welcome the Supreme Court ruling, and are now working hard to consider those findings and the upcoming guidance from the equalities regulator, which will help. I reiterate that the trust framework requires DVS providers to comply with data protection legislation, including the data accuracy principle, where they use and share personal data. That includes the creation of reusable digital identities, as well as one-off checks. If they fail to comply with these requirements, they could lose their certification. This means that the sex information listed on a passport—which, as we all know, could be a combination of biological sex, legal sex under the Gender Recognition Act and gender identity—cannot be used to verify biological sex. The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, asked whether a person can have different genders appearing on different documents. Yes, you could have both genders appearing on different documents, but they could not be used to prove biological sex. I should say to noble Lords that there is a requirement for all this information to be recreated, reused and rechecked each time. In response to noble Lords who asked about historic data, the data will be renewed and checked under the new information that is now available. In the majority of cases where DVS are used, there will not be a need to verify biological sex, as we have noted before, because many DVS requirements do not ask that question. Data sharing under the power created in Clause 45 will involve new processing of data, which must be in compliance with the data accuracy principle: that is, it must be accurate for the purpose for which the information will be used. Of particular relevance, given that public authorities will be sharing data for verification purposes, is the fact that data accuracy principles require that the personal data must not be misleading. With regard to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about supplementary codes of practice, I can confirm that the trust framework already includes requirements on data accuracy for DVS providers. That framework will, of course, be updated from time to time. On scientific research, let me repeat my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for his contribution on this issue. I am glad that he was reassured by my remarks that we have been able to come to an agreeable resolution. I very much concur with the comments of the noble Lord Clement-Jones, that there has to be an ethical basis to those standards, and that point is absolutely well made. On that basis, I hope I have reassured noble Lords. I commend the Motion to the House.

My Lords, I wonder, with regard to sexuality, whether the Minister has considered those children who are, unfortunately, born with perhaps an ovary and a testis, or with genitalia which are difficult to identify. How do those become categorised under this regulation? The second thing is that the definition of science proposed in the Bill is not science; it is technology, and there is a big difference, as I explained in the last speech. Science involves knowledge, and we do not know that knowledge until we have the knowledge. We cannot act on that knowledge until we know what the knowledge is. That is hugely important and, as the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, who is not now in his place, said, this has the risk of holding up research which is really necessary. Before I close, I mention just one example of this to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. He made a rather derogatory point about my comment on infection. I did not point out to him that, when I was seven, my father came home with a mild bronchial infection, which went on to be pneumonia. After six months with various inadequate antibiotics—because they did not understand the dosage—penicillin did not work and he died of a brain abscess when I was just eight. That is an example of where research is needed continuously, even when we do not know what we are doing. It is very important to understand that. This Bill and its wording do not fully define science satisfactorily, certainly to scientists.

My Lords, the first thing I would say about categorisation, as I hope I have stressed all along, is that data verification services will be required to provide accurate information. Normally, biological sex is not one of the things that most people need for their identity most of the time, but there are provisions under DVS for categorising to take account of those variations. I talked about biological sex, legal sex under the Gender Recognition Act and gender identity, for example. I hope that my noble friend has taken on board that point. We have a fantastic scientific research community in this country, and it is our intention that it will thrive and grow. We absolutely intend to provide the proper underpinning of that, so that the scientific community does not feel that it is being undermined. I can reassure my noble friend that the provision in this Bill does not undermine the scientific research community, and it can remain confident that it will be protected going forward.

Motion A agreed.

Motion B

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 43B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 43C.

43C: Because it would not be appropriate to restrict the meaning of “scientific research” in the UK GDPR in the ways proposed by the Lords Amendment.

Motion B agreed.

Motion C

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 49B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 49C.

49C: Because the Amendment would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

16:00:00

My Lords, I will also speak to Motion C1. I am conscious of the words of my noble friend the Chief Whip at the start of our proceedings, so I will try not to add unnecessarily to our ongoing discussion on the issue of AI and copyright. As both Minister Bryant and the Secretary of State have said, we share the ambition of your Lordships’ House to foster vibrant, sustainable and secure creative industries in the UK. We all want to get our response to this complicated issue right. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has twice introduced measures into this Bill that would commit the Government to prematurely implementing transparency obligations on AI developers, without consideration of the broader supporting measures that are required, nor how measures would work in practice. Twice the elected House has removed these measures, with the Government and elected Members sending a clear message that although we will take action in this area, this Bill is not the right vehicle to tackle this important problem. Today we are debating a third iteration of the noble Baroness’s amendment. Although I am glad that the noble Baroness now agrees that the Government’s reports are the right mechanism to come to a clear view on transparency, this amendment does not consider the relevant issues together as a complete package. I will not repeat Minister Bryant’s extensive remarks in full, but it remains the Government’s view that transparency cannot be considered in isolation. Regardless of whether an amendment says “must” or “may” in relation to enforcement, it remains the case that careful thought must be given to how transparency obligations would be enforced and by whom. Alongside transparency, we must also consider licensing, the remuneration of rights holders, the role of technical solutions, and any other number of issues relating to copyright and AI. This is why we consulted on all these topics. We must also keep in mind that any solution adopted by the UK must reflect the global nature of copyright, the creative sector and AI development. We cannot ring-fence the UK away from the rest of the world. This is why the reports and impact assessment that the Government have committed to publishing in their own amendments to this Bill will give proper consideration to the full range of issues in light of all available evidence. I share the view expressed by noble Lords and Minister Bryant that this is an urgent issue which needs to be addressed. But jumping straight from reporting on four things to regulating one thing is clearly not the right approach. Piecemeal regulation such as this is not the way to prioritise the protection of 2.4 million creatives. The fact remains that we must develop this policy properly, using the evidence we are gathering from each of the 11,500 consultation responses. We must devise a way forward that addresses these issues coherently and which works for all sectors involved. I look forward to making progress on that soon. We will bring our reports forward as quickly as we are able to, but this is too important a topic to rush. A real example of acting quickly is, as Minister Bryant announced in the other place, convening technical working groups as soon as the Bill is passed. We will get the best minds from the creative industries and the AI sector together to help us to pin down solutions that will work. Our working groups will look in detail at how measures on transparency can be delivered and technical standards promoted and disseminated to support approaches such as watermarking, which is a focus of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose. We are ready and enthusiastic to get on with those discussions and to get workable solutions in place. Our creative industries will be best served by this approach, rather than a process that deals with only one, albeit very important, strand of a complex issue. I understand the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for these issues to be properly addressed. I accept the wish expressed by this House to send a signal to the creative industries that they are cherished and supported. We share that sentiment, and we will, through the process outlined, legislate properly on the basis of evidence and workability. There will be many opportunities for the House to be updated throughout that process. Noting the clearly expressed view of the other place and our commitment to bring forward our proposals as quickly as we can, I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, not to push Motion C1 at the end of this debate. I beg to move Motion C. Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Moved by

At end to insert “, and do propose Amendment 49D in lieu of Amendment 49B—

49D: Before Clause 138, insert the following new Clause— “Requirement to make provision in relation to transparency of copyrighted works used in relation to AI models (1) The Secretary of State or the Treasury must by regulations make provision as set out in this section in relation to a trader which operates a service which— (a) includes the making available of an artificial intelligence (AI) model, and (b) has links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of subsection (2). (2) The service has links with the United Kingdom if— (a) it has a significant number of United Kingdom users, or (b) United Kingdom users form one of the target markets for the service (or the only target market). (3) The regulations must require relevant traders to provide copyright owners with clear, relevant, accurate and accessible information that will allow them to identify— (a) the use of their copyright works used, and (b) the means by which those works were accessed, in the pre-training, training, fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation of the AI model, or any other data input to the AI model. (4) The regulations may provide that the regulations apply in modified form in order that they apply proportionately to small companies and micro-entities within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006, or apply differently to UK-registered companies within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006 as opposed to companies which are not UK-registered. (5) Regulations made under this section may make provision for enforcement of their provisions. (6) The Secretary of State or the Treasury must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations made under this section within six months of the publication of the report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems required by section (Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems), and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.””

My Lords, last week, we had a decisive vote in favour of transparency for UK copyright holders—a first step towards protecting the labour and property of UK creators and creative businesses. Sadly, despite powerful interventions in the other place from all sides, including the Government Benches, those provisions were overturned on the basis of financial privilege. Members of your Lordships’ House are rightly mindful of the primacy of the elected Chamber, so today I speak to Amendment 49D in lieu, which accepts the Government’s report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems already enshrined in the Bill as the mechanism by which they will come to a view on how best to frame transparency measures, while also ensuring that clear, relevant, accurate and accessible information will be provided to copyright owners so that they can identify the use of their copyright works and the means by which those works were accessed. The amendment also takes at face value Statements made by Ministers at the Dispatch Box that creatives, UK AI companies and global brands will be in the room for discussions about copyright on no less a basis than Silicon Valley representatives. It accepts the Government’s will that they have free reign on enforcement procedures, so there are no financial commitments for enforcement as a result of this provision. However, the amendment does require the Government to bring forward transparency regulation within six months of the report being completed. The Government have three times rejected my more comprehensive drafting, but they have also failed to bring forth something of their own. The amendment before us was drafted by an eminent lawyer with the very helpful support of the Public Bill Office. If the Government are not willing to accept a time-limited outcome of their own report, we must ask again if the report is simply a political gesture to push tackling wide-spread theft of UK copyright into the long grass. In the real world, failing to accept a timeline means starving UK industries of the transparency they need to survive. Ministers talk about balancing the interests of AI and creative companies, as if that is reasonable. Not only are they failing to listen to UK AI companies, but the idea is a little extraordinary. No other industrial sector in the UK is required by government policy to give its property or labour to another sector that is in direct competition with it, on a compulsory basis, in the name of balance. The Government should have leapt at this opportunity to save a much-valued and valuable UK industrial sector, central to their own industrial strategy, but they have not. The amendment before us would provide certainty that a transparency regime will be forthcoming within 18 months of Royal Assent and would signal once and for all that UK copyright law is indeed the law of the land, a fact that has now been confirmed, under duress, by Ministers at the Dispatch Box, but still they have taken no action to defend it. This combination, giving creators, and by extension the courts, the information they need to enforce the law is the minimum viable action from the Government if we are to believe their warm words about the value of the creative sector. What you cannot see, you cannot enforce. The amendment would allow UK copyright owners to police their own property, leaving the Government to consider further legislative issues in a process that even Government Ministers admit may bear no fruit until the end of the decade. We have had compelling speeches at each stage of our debate and, I must say, some notable acts of resistance and support, and I am deeply grateful for all of them. Undermining copyright is a multigenerational harm because copyright not only supports today’s creators but is essential to create opportunities for the creators of the future. I want to put on record that young people refute the suggestion that emanates from government that everything is already stolen. Not only do models constantly need to be retrained, fine-tuned or augmented with up-to-date information but some people have not yet started their creative journey and some things remain to be created. It is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that we do not squander the future of the young. The amendment protects property rights of UK citizens and creative corporations. It asserts the right for any worker, including a creative worker, to be paid for their labour. It is also about coherence of policy. Why change benefits or implement new workers’ rights if at the same time the Government undermine copyright in the creative industry, which acts as sick pay, pension and wages across a £126 billion industrial sector? The Government have got it wrong. They have been turned by the sweet whisperings of Silicon Valley, which has stolen—and continues to steal every day we take no action—the UK’s extraordinary, beautiful and valuable creative output. Silicon Valley has persuaded the Government that it is easier to redefine “theft” than make it pay for what it stole. This amendment recognises the primacy of the elected House, and I urge all noble Lords, from all Benches, whatever their allegiance and whatever their whip, to stand behind our creative industries and our indigenous AI community. I have tried everything to persuade the Government in private—everything. If the Government continue on their current intransient path with no meaningful alternatives, we will begin to see the corrosion of our powerful industry—an industry fundamental to country and democracy. It will be a tragedy, and it is entirely avoidable. It is a choice that the Government and we in this House can make today. The UK creative industries embody our history, they hold our shared truth and tell our national story. A nation with a contested story is a troubled nation. A nation that gives away its capacity to tell its own story is a fragile place indeed. I beg to move.

16:15:00

My Lords, here is a very useful amendment proposed by the noble Baroness at this stage of the proceedings. For the creative industries, it offers certainty that a transparency regime will be in place within 18 months of Royal Assent. Within a timetable of their own choosing, it also leaves the Government free to provide new legislation on the wider issues of personal likeness and other connected matters. I will reiterate how this amendment, thereby already consistent with government policy, is also consistent with various articles and conventions of the human rights affiliation of the 46 member states of the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom remains a prominent member and of whose education committee I am a recent chairman. First, 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 safeguards privacy and personal data. As has been much emphasised, the noble Baroness’s amendment not least achieves consistency with our UK tradition of protecting copyright as well—notably evident as early as the Statute of Anne 1710 granting legal protection to publishers of books. Here and abroad, the United Kingdom must continue to assist that good practice. We are enormously grateful to the noble Baroness for this further proposed amendment. We must strongly support it.

My Lords, I speak reluctantly on the issue because, as I have said before, I am a rights holder. I refer to my register of interests. Following the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, very little needs to be said. It was absolutely brilliant and searing. I say to the Government Front Bench, as a member of the creative industry, I do not want to be told how much we are cherished and then see legislation that will begin to destroy us. We have heard much about the rights of those large rights holders, such as Paul McCartney and Elton John. I inform the House that I once received a housewarming present from Elton John, but it was 25 years ago, so it holds no influence over me. I have thought long about this since my previous contribution. Many years ago, a dear friend of mine who is no longer with us, the wonderful character actor, Claire Davenport, had a very early and successful career. Then, like for so many other creatives, it waned. She used to ring me and say, “Chuck, I can’t believe it. My day’s been made. I’ve got a cheque”. A cheque would arrive from something that she had done maybe 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Claire, who was famous for her ample bosom, used to take the cheque, rub it across the ample cherished parts of her talent and say, “Now I can eat”. That is the reality of what happens to people who receive repayment for the use of their creative material. If you strip that away, you are stripping away rights often from those most in need. The creative industries have long taken on board the challenges and we have worked to find the technology to turn them around. We can do so again. This amendment is a brilliant, sensible way forward and I urge every single Member of your Lordships’ House to stand firm with the creative industries, and those yet to come, and support this amendment.

My Lords, I support Motion C1 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I applaud her tenacity and dogged determination to make a difference to the future of our creative industries. She has fought tirelessly to get the Government to consider and accept her amendments. This amendment, if accepted, will tell the British creative industries that the Government understand their concerns and worries for the future. Most of all, it will secure our children’s future and not sell them down the river. It will show them that there will be future opportunities for employment open to them, that their creativity will be not stolen but compensated for, and that their copyrights will be respected. I hope the Government will listen and put in place the safeguards that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is asking for. Transparency is key. Creators need to know whether they are being ripped off, and by whom, when their work is being used. Transparency will give them confidence. I have been fortunate to have carved out a career in the creative industries over the last 55 years, and I am still benefiting from it. I feel it is my duty to ensure that those just starting off can have the opportunity to achieve the same. I urge the Government to listen to the huge concerns of those in the creative industries who look to the Government to protect their world. Our award-winning, highly acclaimed British creative industries are considered the best in the world, but they are on the brink of falling apart if they are not protected. We also need to protect the possibility of creative work for the next generation, and not steal their future—something I am sure the Government would not like to have on their conscience. I hope the Government will listen to my plea, and those of Members from around the House, and act on the noble Baroness’s vital common-sense amendment before it is too late. I declare an interest as per the register.

My Lords, I have two brief points in answer to things that both the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, and Chris Bryant have said in the last week, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has said today. First, when the Government say that the Bill is not the right vehicle for my noble friend Lady Kidron’s amendment, one has to profoundly disagree. Concerns of copyright are integral to the use and access of data; you cannot prise the two things apart. Let us make no mistake: this amendment belongs in the Bill, and the enacted Bill belongs in law. The second point revolves around the principle of the argument. The Government themselves believe that there is an issue with copyright and that there should be much greater transparency. When Chris Bryant says we need to look at these things in the round and not piecemeal, I agree entirely. If we agree between ourselves that something is right, and that that right is not previously enabled in law, we should pass the law, and the principle will find the solution. We do not legalise things that are criminally wrong because they cannot at the present time be sufficiently policed. Having this in law will speed up the solution. Not having it in law inevitably means that we will drag our feet for who knows how long. That will be to the detriment of the creative industries, as creators such as Elton John know full well and are rightly angry about. We agreed on the principle that this is the right thing to do—make it law.

My Lords, it is in some sadness that I rise again to talk on this matter. I thank Government Ministers for the very positive way in which they have engaged with my noble friends and me to discuss how to make some progress and find some kind of compromise on this matter in the Bill. I completely accept that the Commons voted overwhelmingly to reject the amendment originally in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which we sent to them last week. As Disraeli said: “A majority is always the best repartee”, but it is sad if you simply rely on a majority in order to have your way when others are trying to have their say. I would welcome the Government doing a little bit more listening, because this amendment moves quite a long way towards what the Government are saying. When the Commons debated this matter last week, a number of us went down to watch in person what the reaction was like in the Chamber. I have to say that there was a considerable amount of disquiet from the Government Benches about the direction of travel and there were a considerable number of interventions on and questions asked of the Minister, Chris Bryant. I thought he was extremely generous in the way he gave way and entertained those questions and interventions from Members of the House of Commons. He said in the course of his remarks, “we all agree that we should introduce transparency measures”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/5/25; col. 422.] Those were the words that he uttered on the Floor of the House of Commons. Ministers have said to us elsewhere, and we accept, that you cannot have remuneration without transparency—unless you are an AI company, in which case you do not have to reveal what you are training your models on, even if you use the intellectual property of others. We cannot have a double standard on this matter. My noble friend the Minister made a point that Ministers and others have made on a number of occasions: we cannot ring-fence ourselves from the rest of the world. That is true—we live in a highly interconnected world—but the whole history of copyright has been about leadership, having high standards and showing why intellectual property is a source of economic growth. This country has shown leadership throughout history in relation to copyright and setting the highest standards to try to drag people up to our level, rather than simply putting up the flag of surrender and going down to the levels of the rest of the world. I fear there is a view that we have to allow AI companies to do anything they want because otherwise they will just go and do it somewhere else. Surely we should show some leadership on this. If anyone did not have the pleasure, as I did, of listening to my noble friend Lord Bragg’s “In Our Time” programme on Radio 4 about the history of copyright, I recommend that they go back and listen to it on BBC Sounds, including the additional conversation that went on afterwards. My preference, as I made clear last week and have made clear to Ministers, is that if Ministers cannot accept the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, they come back with their own amendment in lieu that at the very least makes sure that Ministers are given a permissive power to require transparency. That can be a “may” instead of a “must”; I know that would not be satisfactory to everybody, but a reasonable concession is needed that provides Ministers with a backstop power that will focus the minds of all concerned on the need to deal with this issue without waiting for a piece of primary legislation—a vehicle that may be some considerable way down the road, even if commitments are made by Ministers. If these amendments are carried today, I hope the Government will come back with their own amendment in lieu to enable there to be a backstop power, even if it is not exactly the amendment we are considering today. That would go a great way towards providing the level playing field we should have for our creative industries.

My Lords, it seems that the Government are relying on two arguments to reject the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. The first is that regulating AI is such a big, complex problem that we cannot deal with one bit; we have to deal with it all. The second is that it is so big that it is global, so we cannot do anything local. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, just demolished the global argument, so I am sure noble Lords are pleased that I am not going to repeat his arguments. I want to demolish the first argument as well, which is that we should wait to do everything in one place on AI. That is for old-world technology, not new, agile technology. If we are going to regulate the digital world, we will need to test and learn. We will need to regulate through things that are necessary, even though we know that they are not sufficient. I have not heard a single argument from the Government in any place suggesting that transparency is not necessary. It is necessary, so this amendment is necessary; it is not sufficient to regulate this extraordinary, groundbreaking technology called AI, but that does not mean we should not regulate now in this way and build on it. I am afraid we will debate AI in this Chamber for decades to come, but that does not mean that we should reject this amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, I hope that the other place and the Government will hear the cross-party support for the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has been doing and bring back something listening to what we have to say.

16:30:00

In supporting my noble friend Lady Kidron, I would like to make one or two things clear. The creative industries are not against AI. Filmmakers, television producers, composers and writers have helped to create the very technology that goes into AI. The creative industries are not trying to pull up the drawbridge, but rather want to monitor what is going across it. They want to police it. As Sir Elton John said, not to do this could amount to a betrayal, because things begin to move very much in increasing volume. He said, importantly, that it is not about people like him; it is about, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said, the next generation—the people who are creating music or writing novels now and getting a pittance for it. They and we do not want to see their work taken and exploited for nothing. I ask noble Lords and the Minister—perhaps they have done this—to think about writing a novel over, say, two or three years, or creating a film, record or disc. You have had to put your own money into it, and then you find that your rights are being stolen. This is burglary. It is nothing else. I declare an interest as a composer. I have had music taken and put into film and adverts, and it is very difficult to stop it. The only way you will stop it is by acting now, before the gate is trampled down by the horses and the stable is empty. It is all very well talking about a vehicle in the future, but we have heard several noble Lords say that the time to act is now. Sir Elton John has said that too, as have many famous composers. It is not just composers at the top of the pop tree; it is classical composers and contemporary composers who make a pittance—perhaps a few hundred pounds. There is a saying in Tin Pan Alley that “Where there’s a hit, there’s a writ”, and that is very true. As soon as you come up with something good, everybody wants it. If this door is left open, we will destroy the future of our creative industries. Let us stop it now.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her indefatigable efforts. She has argued persuasively, patiently and passionately—and there is nothing wrong with a bit of passion in this Chamber, is there chuck? It is not just the noble Baroness. We heard about Elton John over the weekend. He is a national treasure, an icon, a working-class boy made good, a role model who knows the creative industries from the very bottom and a man who is worth listening to, particularly, I would have thought, as he was a Labour supporter at the last election. Yet in his outrage at their complacency, Elton John called this Government “total losers”. Those are harsh words. He could have gone further, because the real losers are going to be the nearly 2.5 million of us—I must declare my interest—who work in the creative industries. All of us could be losers. Yet all this amendment really asks for is a bit of transparency so that we in the creative industries know who will be using our work, which we have slogged away at, struggled with and often suffered to create. The elected Government must, of course, get what they want, but they do not know what they want. Only the other day, the same Government were proclaiming their commitment to soft power and declaring that the creative industries are a vital part of it. Ministers said that our world-beating creative industries are one of the country’s greatest assets. Did they mean it, or were they just empty words? Why are Ministers burying themselves in their departmental silos? All we are asking is for the Government to support their own policies and join them together—give it some harmony, if you like, and follow Sir Elton down that yellow brick road which has created so much success not simply for him but for the entire country. It is because of that great success, because our creative industries are world-beaters, that so many others would love to have part of it. Of course we must protect our creative rights and intellectual property. Why are the Government leaving the front door open and the lights on, with a guard dog chained up at the back? Those who want it will not even need to hack our work; they can simply walk in and take it. We should listen very closely to the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. The world is changing at speed almost beyond our imagination. Please allow us—the writers, the songsters, the artists, the composers—a little protection, so that we can carry on creating and enabling Britain not just to punch above our weight but to sing above the song. I would much prefer to see the Minister not as a total loser—that is entirely inappropriate—but as a great listener. I wait with bated breath and my pen poised.

As my noble friend the Chief Whip said at the start of this debate, we are now into the second round of ping-pong on this Bill. These issues have been debated extensively across Committee, Report and ping-pong last week. I urge all noble Lords to keep their contributions, and this debate, brief and focused.

My Lords, it’s a little bit funny, this feeling inside, as I rise to support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—which my Front Bench so clearly opposes—but I’m still standing, because I do not yet believe that Ministers have heard the clarion cry from our country’s creators that they need more from this Bill. In supporting this amendment, I draw the attention of the House to my declaration in the register as the proud chair of UK Music and as an author; although I say to my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, that, sadly, I have not had the benefit of a rightsholder’s cheque to rub across my ample bosom for several years. I support this amendment because it brings a measure of balance. I understand the Government’s reticence in getting this right, but I believe it is entirely possible to offer a concession to the creative industries without jeopardising the Prime Minister’s commitment to the AI revolution. Elton John was wrong yesterday to personalise this debate but, as one of this country’s greatest ever songwriters, he is entitled to ask: what has he got to do to make you love him? More importantly, what has he got to do to make you hear him? The Minister might not like this amendment but, if not this one, then what? No credible alternative has been offered so, reluctantly but firmly, I shall be voting for the only protection on offer today. When you fail to listen, you leave people with no choice but to sing another tune.

My Lords, I am very well aware, as so many others in this House are, that we are on the second round of ping-pong. Up to now, I have never voted against the Government on a second round of ping-pong, but this is rather special. This is actually crucial. There is an outcry across the country. There is unanimity across this House. Having listened to Labour Peers, I must say that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in having, like him, no artistic or creative ability whatever, but I care about it because I am a recipient of it. What I find so difficult is that this Government are not listening to what is being said across the country. This is their last chance to recognise the damage they are doing. I ask the Minister to go back and tell her department that there is unanimity in the House that this amendment should pass.

My Lords, I shall be brief. We are in a pickle. This is an important Bill that needs to gain Royal Assent quickly, for EU data adequacy reasons if nothing else. Incidentally, I do not believe that the Bill does active harm to the creative sector as it is written, but, since the copyright consultation preferred the wrong option, the sector’s trust in the Government on this issue has collapsed. I pay tribute to the way the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has represented the sector. That distrust means that Ministers’ subsequent words of reassurance are not trusted by the sector. We therefore need campaigners and Ministers to meet and find a way through with meaningful action. I believe that Ministers are trying to act in good faith and are sincere in wanting both to create a benign environment for AI in this country and to protect copyright and the remuneration of the creative industries that are so important to this country. Artists are raising their voice in good faith, although I agree with my noble friend Lord Watson about it being unhelpful to personalise some elements of the debate. It is important to give the Secretary of State himself another opportunity to speak in the other place, on the record, at the Dispatch Box, having had a few days to reflect, and negotiate a way of reassuring the sector that Ministers see the urgency in protecting the livelihoods of artists from big tech while taking advantage of the creative and economic opportunities of AI. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is a good basis for proceeding. In order to give the Secretary of State that opportunity, I will be supporting the noble Baroness’s amendment if she chooses to divide the House.

My Lords, at the heart of this debate lies a single critical principle—trust: trust that those who built powerful AI systems will not exploit the work of others without permission; trust that the UK Government will stand by our creative sector; and trust that our laws, long respected internationally, are not ignored in the rush to compete with Silicon Valley. Last week, the Minister in the other place, Sir Chris Bryant, raised an important point: what do we do about the copyright status of works generated by AI? It is a good question, but impossible to answer without knowing what content the models were trained on. If we cannot see what went in, we cannot possibly judge what comes out. Transparency is the gateway to fair licensing and a vibrant market in which both AI developers and creators thrive. Without it, there is no accountability, no fair return, and no protection for the next generation of artists, writers and innovators. The UK has a proud tradition of creativity and innovation. This amendment allows us to protect the former while enabling the latter. I urge the House to support it.

My Lords, very briefly, I want to pick up on my noble friend Lady Harding’s point about the Government’s message that they wish to legislate in the round. I urge the Government to listen to the point that my noble friend was making. We started debating the regulation of tech platforms in 2011, and it took us more than a decade to pass the Online Safety Act. It was one of the most painful legislative processes I have ever seen. The Minister will be very surprised, if this legislation is passed, how quickly it has an impact. On the second point, about piecemeal legislation, if we had listened to that argument, we would not have passed the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, when, I think, we were in government—I may still have been a Minister when she first proposed them—for the age-appropriate design code. That is a very telling piece of legislation, because we see the impact it has around the world. The platforms now follow the age-appropriate design code, and it makes a difference. As I say, it took us more than a decade to regulate platforms—think about the missed opportunities. My final point is to pick up on the very important technical point of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, about being in a pickle. Much as I might delight, as a former Tory culture Minister, to see the serried ranks of the creative industries putting the boot into a Labour Government, I feel enormous sympathy for them. They can turn this around this afternoon in a flash.

16:45:00

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. I express the extremely strong support of all on these Benches for Motion C1, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I agree with every speech that we have heard so far in today’s debate—I did not hear a single dissenting voice to the noble Baroness’s Motion. Once again, I pay tribute to her; she has fought a tireless campaign for the cause of creators and the creative industries throughout the passage of the Bill. I will be extremely brief, given that we want to move to a vote as soon as possible. The House has already sent a clear message by supporting previous amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, and I hope that the House will be as decisive today. As we have heard this afternoon, transparency is crucial. This would enable the dynamic licensing market that is needed, as we have also heard. How AI is developed and who it benefits are two of the most important questions of our time—and the Government must get the answer right. As so many noble Lords have said, the Government must listen and must think again.

My Lords, it is probably redundant to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her tenacity and determination to get to a workable solution on this, because it speaks for itself. It has been equally compelling to hear such strong arguments from all sides of the House and all Benches—including the Government Benches—that we need to find a solution to this complex but critical issue. Noble Lords will recall that, on these Benches, we have consistently argued for a pragmatic, technology-based solution to this complex problem, having made the case for digital watermarking both in Committee and on Report. When we considered the Commons amendments last week, we worked closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to find a wording for her amendment which we could support, and were pleased to be able to do so and to vote with her. It is important that the Government listen and take action to protect the rights of creatives in the UK. We will not stop making the case for our flourishing and important creative sector. We have put that case to Ministers, both in your Lordships’ House and at meetings throughout the passage of the Bill. As a responsible Opposition, though, it is our view that we must be careful about our approach to amendments made by the elected House. We have, I hope, made a clear case to the Government here in your Lordships’ House and the Government have, I deeply regret to say, intransigently refused to act. I am afraid that they will regret their failure to take this opportunity to protect our creative industries. Sadly, there comes a point where we have to accept that His Majesty’s Government must be carried on and the Government will get their Bill. Before concluding, I make two final pleas to the Minister. First, as others have asked, can she listen with great care to the many artists, musicians, news organisations, publishers and performers who have called on the Government to help them more to protect their intellectual property? Secondly, can she find ways to create regulatory clarity faster? The process that the Government envisage to resolve this issue is long—too long. Actors on all sides of the debate will be challenged by such a long period of uncertainty. I understand that the Minister is working at pace to find a solution, but not necessarily with agility. I echo the brilliant point made by my noble friend Lady Harding that agility and delivering parts of the solution are so important to pick up the pace of this, because perfect is the enemy of good in this instance. When she gets up to speak, I hope that the Minister will tell us more about the timeline that she envisages, particularly for the collaboration of DSIT and DCMS. This is a serious problem. It continues to grow and is not going away. Ministers must grip it with urgency and agility.

My Lords, once again, I acknowledge the passion and depth of feeling from those noble Lords who have spoken and, again, I emphasise that we are all on the same side here. We all want to see a way forward that protects our creative industries, while supporting everyone in the UK to develop and benefit from AI. Of course, we have listened, and are continuing to listen, to the views that have been expressed. We are still going through the 11,500 responses to our consultation, and I have to tell noble Lords that people have proposed some incredibly creative solutions to this debate which also have a right to be heard. This is not about Silicon Valley; it is about finding a solution for the UK creative and AI tech sectors that protects both. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, now endorses the Government’s reports as the right way to identify the right solutions; however, I will address some of her other points directly. First, she talked about her amendment providing certainty to the creative industries. I can provide that certainty now, as Minister Bryant did in the other place last week. Copyright law in the UK is unchanged by this Bill. Works are protected unless one of the exemptions, which have existed for some time, such as those for teaching and research, applies, or the rights holders have guaranteed permission for their work to be used. That is the law now and it will be the law tomorrow. I also want to reassure my noble friend Lord Cashman and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who talked about us stripping away rights today. I want to be clear that the Government have proposed no legislation on this issue; the Bill does no such thing. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would provide no certainty other than that of more uncertainty—of continuous regulations, stacked one upon another in a pile of instruments. This cannot be what anyone desires, and it is why the Government do not agree to it. The noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding, suggested that her amendment, requiring regulations on only one issue ahead of all others and via a different process, would somehow leave Parliament free to consider all the other issues independently. I am afraid that this is not the case; this is a policy decision with many moving parts. Jumping the gun on one issue will hamstring us in reaching the best outcome on all the others, especially because, as I said earlier, this is a global issue, and we cannot ring-fence the UK from the rest of the world. We refute the suggestion that we are being complacent on this. I say to my noble friend Lord Brennan that I of course agree that the UK should be a global leader, but we need to make sure that we have the right approach before we plant our flag on that. There is a reason that no other territory has cracked this either. The EU, for example, is still struggling to find a workable solution. It is not easy, but we are working quickly. The noble Baroness once again raised enforcement, and she has left the mechanism to the discretion of the Government in her new amendment. While we are pleased that the noble Baroness has changed her approach on enforcement in light of the Commons reasons, we all agree that for new transparency requirements to work, enforcement mechanisms will be needed and must be effective. The noble Baroness said she has tried everything to persuade the Government, and I would have welcomed a further meeting with her to discuss this and other aspects of her revised proposals. Unfortunately, however, that invitation was not accepted. To reiterate, in spite of all our different positions on this Bill, we are all working towards the same goal. Following proper consideration of consultation responses and publication of our technical reports, we will bring forward comprehensive and workable proposals that will give certainty to all sides. If the House has strong views when the proposals come forward, there will of course be the opportunity for us to debate them. We have made it clear that our reports will be delivered within 12 months and earlier if we can. I remind noble Lords that the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will not take effect for 18 months. There is not an instant solution, as many noble Lords want to hear today. Neither the noble Baroness’s nor our amendment is an instant solution; it will take time, and we have to recognise that. We do not believe, in the meantime, that protracted ping-pong on this one remaining issue in the Bill is in anyone’s interest. The elected House has spoken twice and through legislative and non-legislative commitments, the Government have shown they are committed to regulating quickly and effectively. Therefore, I hope the noble Baroness and your Lordships’ House will accept these assurances and continue working with the Government to make progress on this important issue. A lot has been said in this debate about the importance of transparency. To my noble friend Lord Brennan, I say that the Government have said from the very beginning that we will prioritise the issue of transparency in all the work we do. Transparency is essential to licensing; licensing is essential to the question of remuneration; and remuneration is essential to AI being high quality, effective and able to be deployed in the UK. These are the challenges we are facing, but all these things have to be addressed in the round and together, not in a piecemeal fashion. However, noble Lords are absolutely right to say that, without transparency, it is, of course, worth nothing. On enforcement, the Government are sympathetic to the argument that it is a different matter for individuals to enforce their rights via the courts as opposed to large creative agencies. This is the kind of the thing that the working groups I have mentioned will explore. As Minister Bryant said last week, we want to make the new regime effective for everybody, large and small. I will finish with some things I am sure we can all agree on: the urgency of the problem; the need to be evidence-based; that solutions will require collaboration between the creative and the AI sectors; and the solutions must work for everyone. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that everybody will have a seat at the table in the discussions. I hope noble Lords will agree with me and truly support the innovators and creators in the UK by voting with the Government on this Motion, which will deliver a full, comprehensive package that will make a difference to the creative sector for years to come in this country.

My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken on this issue in the House and outside of the House. I particularly thank the Members on the Government Benches; I know it comes hard to disagree with your party, and I really appreciate it, as do all those outside the House. I am going to try to take the high road from the Minister’s passionate defence. If the Government had spent as much time talking to me as they did to their own Back Bench to say, “Please do not rebel”, we would be in a different place. I did say that I was not able to be there at a particular time, but there were quite a lot of other occasions on which other Ministers, including the Secretary of State, knew where I was. To go to the crux of the matter, the noble Baroness the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that this is UK law and the Government have done nothing to change it. This is precisely the problem: it is UK law, but it is unenforceable because what you cannot see you cannot enforce—period. That is the problem we are trying to solve, and it is a separate and different problem from the enormity of all the other issues she rightly raises. While I accepted the report as the mechanism and the idea that the Government could have their enforcement procedure in their own timeline, nothing that any Minister has said in either the other place or your Lordships’ House has put a timeline on it. It will take years and, by that time, there will be no creative industry left, or it will be in tatters. I was interested in the contribution that said that AI companies have transparency and renumeration; that is the fundamental principle. I will not detain the House any longer. I am so grateful for everybody’s contributions to all our debates. This was a Lords starter; this does not challenge the primacy of the Commons. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

1|17:00|289|118|Division on Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)|Motion C1 agreed.||0|0

The Division result was initially reported as Contents 287; Not-Contents 118.

17:12:00

Motion D

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendment 52, on which the Commons have insisted for their Reason 52D, and do not insist on its Amendments 52B and 52C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement, to which the Commons have disagreed for the same Reason.

52D: Because the Disagreement by the Lords to Commons Amendment 52 and the Lords Amendments would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion D agreed.