Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Commons Reason

16:32:00

Motion A

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 49F, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 49G, and do propose Amendments 49H, 49J, 49K, 49L and 49M in lieu of Amendment 49F—

49G: Because the proposed statement to the House of Commons is unnecessary, given the economic impact assessment and report which are required to be published and laid before Parliament by Commons Amendments 45 and 46, and because it is not appropriate to require the Secretary of State to publish draft legislation within three months of publishing those documents.

49H: In subsection (1), leave out “12” and insert “9”

49J: In subsection (1), leave out “12” and insert “9”

49K: After subsection (3)(d) insert— “(e) ways of enforcing requirements and restrictions relating to— (i) the use of copyright works to develop AI systems, and (ii) the accessing of copyright works for that purpose (for example, by web crawlers), including enforcement by a regulator.”

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

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

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motion A1. Following on from colleagues discussing this in the other place yesterday, we are back here again today to debate this issue of AI and copyright. Your Lordships will see on today’s Order Paper amendments from the Government providing legislative underpinning to the commitments I made on Monday. My letter to noble Lords yesterday set out in detail what these amendments do alongside everything else the Government have done to respond to noble Lords’ concerns. I hope this helped to dispel the feeling that the Government are not listening and have not compromised. It also puts beyond any doubt the Government’s views on the issues at hand, especially the issue of transparency. The solution to these issues is what we have said all along. There is no disagreement with our plan to finish analysing the consultation processes, convene technical working groups, make a Statement to the House on progress, and then bring forward reports setting out our proposals and our economic impact assessment of them. I am glad to make amendments to the Bill to give this plan legislative effect. This is consistent with our approach of hearing concerns, responding to them and moving the Bill forward. I urge noble Lords from across the House to support them. The only issue on today’s Order Paper with which there is any disagreement is the question of whether the Bill should mandate the future production of a draft Bill, its contents and it going through the pre-legislative scrutiny process. I hope that noble Lords agree with what I put in my letter to them: we cannot, should not and must not prejudge the outcome of these processes. Despite assertions to the contrary, good government does not assume what 11,500 detailed responses to its consultation will say. Our plan—to consult properly and finish the job, carrying out the processes as now mandated in the Bill and then bringing forward legislation that both Houses of Parliament can have confidence in—is surely the right one. A draft Bill is not a plan to solve the problem. Indeed, it could have the consequence of delaying the very reforms that your Lordships have called for. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will support the amendments in my name, but not continue to insist on Amendment 49F today. Before I finish, I will address the question of double insistence. Today, noble Lords have been presented with a question of whether to go even further than we have come so far during ping-pong and choose whether they want the entire Bill to fall if the Government do not accept the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I sincerely hope that it does not come to this, for it would mean that noble Lords are willing to countenance the unprecedented: trying to collapse a Bill that does nothing to weaken copyright law, but which does deliver many of the elected Government’s manifesto commitments—for example, a data preservation process supporting bereaved parents; new offences for intimate image deepfake abuse; smart data schemes such as open banking that businesses have been crying out for; and a framework for research into online safety. This would mean that noble Lords are willing to try to collapse a Bill that the elected Government are using to grow the economy by £10 billion, the number one mission from their manifesto and election campaign; that makes vital, uncontroversial and necessary amendments to our national security and policing laws to keep us safe; that will save 140,000 hours of NHS time per year, with the potential to reduce medication errors by 6.8 million and prevent 20 deaths per year; and that the elected House has voted overwhelmingly in favour of four times. I urge noble Lords to choose instead the Government’s plan to solve this issue and vote with the Government today. I beg to move. Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 49F.”

My Lords, I did not expect to be here today. I am disappointed, frustrated and, to be honest, quite sad to be here and to have to make this argument again. I will make just four points and then I will listen to the House and to the Minister. First, it is not fair, reasonable, just, balanced, or any other such word to stand in the way of the creative industries identifying those who are taking their work and their property. It is not neutral; it is aiding and abetting what we have called in the House “widespread theft”. We have asked, both privately and repeatedly on the Floor of both Houses, what the Government are going to do to stop the work of creatives being stolen right now. The answer is nothing. Secondly, the Government may be new—ish—but your Lordships’ House is full of people with long political histories. They see time and delay in the consultation, in working groups, and in Statements to Parliament. Inaction is a powerful tool in politics. In opposition, Labour wrote a manifesto for the creative industries that it took into the election with a raft of promises, including to “support, maintain and promote the UK’s strong copyright regime”. The manifesto stated: “The success of British creative industries to date is thanks in part to our copyright framework”. Yet we are struggling to get the Government to act on that promise, or to act on that knowledge. The Government are aware of the stealing, aware of the law, and aware that creative work morally and financially belongs to its creator. The Government are aware that the success of creative industries depends in large part on the copyright regime, and that mass theft is breaking the press, the arts and other IP-rich businesses, and hampering the UK AI community. Inaction is not neutral. It is hurting our community and it is hurting the Government’s future prosperity. Thirdly, all noble Lords, including me, are concerned about the primacy of the Commons. We are being accused of constitutional wrongdoing. I was very disappointed in the Minister’s opening speech. We are not trying to collapse the Bill. This Bill is a Lords starter. If we vote, we will not be double-insisting. That is entirely, 100%, in the hands of the Commons. Even though we have been here several times—largely because the Commons evoked financial privilege twice, with a very low bar—today is the first time the House would be insisting on any of its amendments. That point has been made by many noble Lords who have been in the House a great deal longer than I have. If we were to send the Bill back for Commons consideration today, the other place would have three choices. It could choose to accept the amendment, it could choose to replace it with its own amendment in lieu, or it could choose to double-insist—and crash the Bill. I want to make it absolutely clear that, whatever transpires today, I will accept the choice the Government make. This is our last chance to ask the Government to provide a meaningful solution, and it will be in their hands alone to provide one. Yesterday in the other place, Conservative and Liberal colleagues voted for this amendment enthusiastically, on the basis that it was a minimum that we could ask for—an amendment that the Government told me in advance of our debate that they would overturn. And indeed they did, in 38 minutes. I thank those on the Opposition Benches in the other place, many of whom have written to me this morning expressing support and the hope that noble Lords will, as they say, keep going. I thank colleagues across your Lordships’ House for their eloquent contributions and extraordinary support throughout. I also thank again Labour colleagues who have sat on their hands and occasionally come through the Lobby with us. I know it is hard, but it is the role of your Lordships’ House to ask the Government to think again, and it is both against convention and a rebuke to the House, a rebuke to the true feelings of their own Back Benchers, a rebuke to a £126 billion industrial sector and a rebuke to the 2.4 million creative workers, to return again and again with no solution to the stealing. Unless this is a tacit deal with big tech, it makes no sense to refuse to take a power just in case, and to refuse to create a timeline or a legislative vehicle for transparency on behalf of our second-biggest industrial sector when it is crying out for our support—the very support that Labour promised.

16:45:00

Ministers have not been entirely straightforward with their assurances, because, in the three or more years that it will take them to weaken the copyright law to benefit AI companies that they newly claim is not fit for purpose, they are forcing the sector to bleed wealth and jobs, and I am struggling to stand by and let that happen. The creative industries are grateful to your Lordships’ House and I am proud to be among the many noble Lords who have acted on principle, not party lines. It is the Government who have refused to meet convention and find a compromise.

Fourthly and finally, what is at stake is the basic principle that creators own their creations, and no amount of obfuscation can hide it. This is about how working people and UK businesses protect themselves from theft to earn an honest wage. There is no moral, economic or political argument against this principle and, despite giving assurances on every argument that noble Lords and Members of the other place have offered, the Government have hidden behind procedure and failed to act to protect those workers and businesses. Government is about action, not blandishments, and if they cannot accede to any of the amendments that we have presented that would enable copyright owners to protect their own property, they are knowingly pushing the creative sector into crisis.

I said that I will listen to noble Lords, and I will, but, should the Government prevail, it will be a catastrophic day for the creative industries and a catastrophic error of judgment. Private property is not theirs to give away, and the so-called “Kidron amendments” are not my amendments but a clarion cry from the creative and UK AI industries for government protection from a handful of very powerful companies that are stealing their property, their wages, their pensions, and their maternity, holiday and sick pay. The Government were asked to offer a lifeline, but they have chosen to turn the most modest amendment into a political crisis by refusing to compromise.

I ask the House to consider whose interest this inaction benefits. Ministers agree that the creative sector is precious, they agree that it is being robbed, and they agree that the world is better with music and the arts. Ministers love Kate Bush, Shakespeare and Coldplay, but they are frustrating any attempt to give this generation of artists a tool to defend themselves and to defend the next generation of artists. I am asking one last time for the Government to offer the House and the creative industries a timeline and a vehicle by which they can protect their investments and livelihood. It does not have to be this way. Failing to act denies the UK’s second-biggest sector the effective right to own and control its own property and labour. Denying them that basic human right puts the creative industries on a path of direct conflict with their elected representatives. That is not something I wish to see. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will very briefly make two points. The first is to perhaps allay some fears that noble colleagues may have about the constitutional propriety of where we find ourselves, and for this, I thank our wonderful Library. This is a Lords starter Bill—it started in your Lordships’ House. Since 1997, there have been no fewer than 14 Bills which started in the Lords and have gone backwards and forwards for ping-pong three times or more. Of the 14 Bills, two of them got a score of five, one got a score of four and 11 got a score of three, so we are not in virgin or new territory. This is tried and tested and it is what happens when there are fundamental disagreements, and there is nothing unconstitutional about trying to settle a genuine disagreement in a way which gets each side to listen to the other, to acknowledge the other side’s strength of view and to come up with some sort of accommodation which both sides can live with. We are having a problem arriving at that, but we are not in a state of constitutional impropriety. That is the first point that I wish to make. The second is to emphasise the point my noble friend was making on the urgency of this. I have some sympathy for His Majesty’s Government here. When I spoke briefly on Monday, I tried to indicate the background and the dilemma that our Government find themselves in, and I have a lot of sympathy for that. Under the previous Government, noble Lords may recall that our penultimate Prime Minister was a great fan of AI and made great play of trying to attract interest in AI, positioning the United Kingdom as potentially a major base of the AI sector outside the United States. The new Government have continued that theme and recognised AI as a core element in one of their many missions for growth. However, if we look at where the United States is coming from, we see that its position is very clear, and it is deeply uncomfortable for us. Vice-President Vance said on 11 February at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris that “with the president’s recent executive order on AI, we’re developing an AI Action Plan that avoids an overly precautionary regulatory regime while ensuring that all Americans benefit from the technology and its transformative potential … Now, we invite your countries to work with us and to follow that model if it makes sense for your nations. However, the Trump Administration is troubled by reports that some foreign governments are considering tightening the screws on U.S. tech companies with international footprints. Now, America cannot and will not accept that, and we think it’s a terrible mistake not just for the United States of America but for your own countries”. What could be clearer than that? OpenAI, one of the major companies involved in this, says that America needs a global strategy that adopts American AI systems, not anybody else’s, and a copyright strategy that protects “the rights and interests of content creators”, and preserves “American AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material”. After the consultation in this country with our Government, it said: “The UK has a rare opportunity to cement itself”, —it makes one think of being in cement under Brooklyn Bridge— “as the AI capital of Europe by making choices that avoid policy uncertainty, foster innovation, and drive economic growth”, calling for a broad copyright exemption. Lastly, Google said that rights holders can already effectively exercise “choice and control”, but suggested those who opt out of AI training would not necessarily have a right to remuneration if they still appeared on a model’s training data—so, basically, “We’ve stolen it, but too bad”. It further said that “we believe training on the open web must be free”, and it warned that “excessive transparency requirements … could hinder AI development and impact the UK’s competitiveness in the space”. This is the very uncomfortable dilemma we are in. I would welcome transparency from His Majesty’s Government about the fact that we are in an uncomfortable place and that we all need to work together to find a solution that is in the best interests of our country and of our creative sector. We obviously need to come to an accommodation with the United States of America, but on the basis of the last two months since “Freedom Day”, one day after April Fools’ Day, we are in dangerous territory. We just need to be honest with one another.

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness on her determination and consistency in promoting this cause. It is very worth while, and, as she said, she is the spokesperson for at least 2.5 million people who constitute the cultural history of our country. What I find rather extraordinary about this Government is that, within a period of a year, they have sought to turn huge numbers of people sharply against them. First, they turned the pensioners against them, then they turned on the farmers, and now they are turning on the creators of our culture, which are very much larger than the farmers. If this is passed tonight, I am sure it will go to the Cabinet and the Prime Minister, who must begin to wonder, if he is managing to turn all these groups into enemies, how many will support them in 2029 This has political implications. There is no doubt that the whole cultural world of our country—not just the writers but the composers and painters as well—feels that it would have its livelihood severely limited, if not almost eliminated. Not only does that go for the famous writers such as Ishiguro but last Thursday, Antony Gormley, our leading sculptor —some would say he is a genius—said that it was our duty to defend the moral integrity of creators. I hope that the Minister also believes in what he said about defending the moral integrity of creators. That is what this Bill is about. Once we remove the protection of royalty, we make copying very easy and very quick. If the Bill stands on the statute book like this, it will also enhance criminality, because not only the big four but anybody in their garage in Wolverhampton could ask ChatGPT, or AI, or Microsoft to create a picture by a great painter, and then they could sell it. Only if the painter were alive and said, “Well, I never painted it” would they be able to stop it. When they are dead, anybody can do it. In fact, I think some would do it. I know the Minister is under pressure from the big American companies, but I draw her attention to comments in the Financial Times this week by someone who is described normally as the godfather of AI, a Canadian called Yoshua Bengio. He says that, at this moment, all sorts of people are experimenting in AI and trying to find a way to accommodate it and protect themselves from it but also benefit from it. He said very clearly that he was scared by recent events, “because we don’t want to create a competitor to human beings on this planet, especially if they’re smarter than us”. That is of course the danger of AI, particularly in the creative world. Once the creators have lost control of their royalties, what will they depend on? There is absolutely no doubt that many of them will suffer financially because of this Bill. Last week, as I already mentioned, Antony Gormley—our famous sculptor; some would say he is a genius—said on the “Today” programme that there is a duty to defend the moral dignity of our creators. That is at the heart of the amendments the noble Baroness has tabled. I hope the Government will therefore consider not only that this is a bad Bill but that it has been done far too quickly. Normally in our legislation, we have consultation before we get to Report, but the Minister says that they are now consulting everywhere on the impacts of this measure. That is entirely the wrong way to behave, and I hope we will send the Bill back to the Commons later tonight.

17:00:00

My Lords, as I have often said in this House, I will accept nothing less than a compromise, but it seems that this Government are refusing to act on the wisdom, knowledge and experience of this House. My heart is broken to think that the Government could be so irresponsible and not see the damage being done to our creative industries. I declare my interests as set out in the register. I will tell the House a personal story about something that happened to me the other day. I was in the supermarket discussing with my husband which apples to buy, when a woman standing nearby said, “I would recognise that voice anywhere. You’re Floella. I’m one of your ‘Play School’ babies”. I smiled, happily posed for a selfie and gave her my autograph. However, it made me realise that my voice is linked to my character and legacy and is also an asset. This is the perfect example of how many people in my creative industry rely on their voices to earn a living. The deep concern is that AI models could replicate an actor’s or presenter’s voice and distinctive vocal style, almost perfectly, and use it in an advert or voiceover without their knowledge or permission, without payment, and without care or moral conscience—and in such a cavalier fashion. This is why people in the creative industries are so frightened about the consequences of an AI free-for-all where transparency and copyright law are non-existent. I once again speak in support of the intrepid noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and stand shoulder to shoulder with her to make sure that we keep fighting to prevent the livelihoods of thousands and thousands of people—their lifeblood—being stolen. Yes, it is a shame that we have to be involved in ping-pong in this way, but I do so because, at the end of the day, I cannot face my friends and colleagues in the creative industries knowing that I did not do the right thing and make a stand. I can now look them in the eye and say, like many other noble Lords across this House, “I stood up for you and the future of your creative industries, and for the benefit of our children’s future, as I have always done”. They will be excluded from being part of the creative industries as we know them, and from forging careers in this exciting, adventurous, creative, highly respected world. I do not see this as a party-political matter, and, in years to come, we will suffer the consequences of this error of judgment and the mental anguish it has caused. In my 15 years in this House, I have been assured many times by Ministers, “We will make changes later”, only to realise that “later” never comes. So, we are standing up for the creative industries and their fight for survival and fairness—now, not later. I urge all Members of this House to show strength of support, stand together with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and send a clear message to the Government that we are not accepting this on our watch. The creative industries deserve better and must be saved.

My Lords, I have yet to vote with the Government on this issue. We all owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for the way in which she has championed the interests of the creative sector against the daylight robbery of its rights by big tech to train its models. She has given another powerful speech today. But I have decided that today, I will support the Government, to the disappointment of her and my friends alongside me, for three reasons. First, I accept we are not there yet, but we are perilously close to losing an important Bill that is needed to secure data adequacy with the European Union, to give coroners access to social media companies’ data, and to secure the offences relating to deepfake porn championed by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. Secondly, constitutionally, it is now time to listen to the elected House on a Bill that has been through the Commons three times and this House twice, more or less, and was a manifesto commitment. Thirdly, we now have some modest movement from the Government in their amendment, reflecting more urgency and a commitment to comprehensively dealing with the issues of AI and copyright together. This issue has been appallingly dealt with by the Government. I am not referring to my noble friend the Minister, because some things are out of her hands; but I hope that, as a result of ping-pong, the Government now understand this House better, that they understand the passion and power of the creative sector better, and that they deliver on their promises to legislate comprehensively on the issues of AI and copyright as quickly as possible, and based on the need for transparency. On that, I will work with anybody else to hold their feet to the fire.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, misses one or two points. My noble friend Lady Kidron has made it clear that this is her last stand, so nobody is suggesting that noble Lords are going to try to defeat this Bill. Indeed, I do not think any of us would want to do that. The Government have said that there is no change to copyright law—I think that is correct—and that copyright law will be upheld. So far, so good. But if we cannot see how copyright is being transgressed, how can we enforce the law? How can we take people to court to get back our royalties? I should mention my interests as listed in the register. In order, it would seem, to appease the American big tech companies and quite possibly President Trump himself, what we have actually done is locked the front door of our creative mansion but left the back door wide open. That is why, in a nutshell, the creative industries are up in arms. It is why I will support the noble Baroness, should she decide it wise to seek the opinion of the House, and I will support her on behalf of all those writers, artists and musicians who stand to lose out through this lack of transparency. I know many composers, writers, painters and film-makers who earn a pittance from copyright—£2, £3, £50, £100. But however small it is, it is an acknowledgement that they created something, and that that intellectual property belongs to them and should be rewarded.

My Lords, I am an unaffiliated Member of this House, even though I sit on Labour’s Benches—some may say an “unbalanced” Member of this House. I refer to my registered interests. I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, am saddened that we have reached this point. The Bill will not be destroyed should she divide the House this afternoon and should noble Lords vote in favour of her amendment. That is purely within the power of the Commons. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, referred to friends in the industry, and we have many. I say to the Government: are the creative industries, unions, associations, writers, directors and painters all wrong and the Government are right? If so, what do the Government have to fear from an approach that is absolutely transparent and allows us, the creators, to hold those who use our work accountable? I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has said everything that needs to be said at this juncture. Valiantly, she has marched us to the top of the hill. It is the moral high ground, and it is not a hill I am going to march down from. I had the Whip suspended from me by the Labour Party nearly a year ago, and on a point of principle, I subsequently resigned. I believe, like everybody else here, we are here to pursue the principles we believe in—yes, the democratic principles—high amongst which is holding accountable the Members of the other place and the Government.

My Lords, I join with others in supporting the noble Baroness in exercising her right to insist upon Amendment 49F. Three months after the Government’s own report, this allows Parliament to be informed of the scale of the theft and the loss of revenue to United Kingdom companies, as it also enables a draft Bill on copyright infringement, AI models and transparency of input. Your Lordships may consider that these measures are relevant for three reasons. First, they offer a degree of competence and protection, otherwise so far insufficiently provided, to and for the creative industries in the United Kingdom. Secondly, they give an example internationally, including within the 46 states affiliated to the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom remains a highly regarded member and of whose education committee I am a recent chairman. Thirdly, both within and beyond Europe, and starting with the 1710 Statute of Anne, granting legal protection to publishers of books, they continue to set a copyright protection standard, which in this case is expected of the United Kingdom and is also consistent with Article 11 of the 2024 Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, human rights, democracy and the rule of law, safeguarding privacy and personal data.

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and declare my interest as an artist member of DACS. I have supported the amendments from the noble Baroness because transparency would have unlocked avenues to negotiate licences, bringing mutual benefits to AI companies and rights holders alike. Yesterday, in another place, the Minister asked, “What is the point of transparency if a company refuses to comply without enforcement?” The answer is simple: not all companies will refuse. There are responsible players: companies that will want to act lawfully and ethically, which would welcome clear frameworks for transparency and licensing. Transparency would level the playing field in favour of those companies and would put pressure on those that choose to defy the law, rather than allowing them to dominate by default. Without transparency, the opposite happens: the market rewards infringement and penalises respect for copyright. That is the road we are on, and it is not one this House should endorse. Every day of inaction allows unchecked infringement while good companies face competitive disadvantage. How long must artists and rights holders wait? The time for transparency is not some distant future date; it is now.

17:15:00

My Lords, I have supported the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, throughout in her amendments, but, as a former Member of the elected House, I think we reach a very difficult juncture today in insisting on an amendment which I think we all know and agree is actually inadequate. It is a modest, moderate amendment that will not do the job that all of us who have been supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, throughout would like to see done: namely, to guarantee the transparency that is needed in order to protect copyright into the future. As a former Member of the elected House, and despite agreeing entirely with all the arguments that have been made, I find it very difficult to walk through the Lobby when the elected House, of which I was a Member for 23 years, has clearly rejected the proposal that we are now considering again today to send back to that House. In saying that, I want to say to the Government that I hope that they have listened intently to the debates that we have had in this House and all the points that have been raised, and I hope that they are aware of the emergency that we are describing in this House. I went this morning, as I did yesterday, to visit and have a look at the South by Southwest conference taking place in Shoreditch, in north London. If you go through the Tube station at Old Street, you will encounter a number of advertisements for AI companies with the slogan, “Stop Hiring Humans”. Now I am a member of the Labour Party and for us in the Labour Party, one of the reasons why we have been putting through measures such as the Employment Rights Bill is because we believe in the dignity of labour, and in the importance of people being rewarded for their labour. That includes those who work freelance or who depend on their intellectual property for their income. I want the Government to think, when they are engaging with these companies, “Who are we getting into bed with on some of these occasions? Who are the people we are perhaps unnecessarily favouring and giving privileged access to in government? What are their intentions for the future of labour, the workforce, pay and conditions, the dignity of people in work and the right for them to protect their intellectual property?” What is happening right now, for example, in the music industry? Just last weekend, the four major record labels announced that they were in negotiations. Rather, it was revealed, they did not announce it, that they were in negotiations with apps such as Suno, which I have on my phone, which will create—not create, generate—for you. It does not create anything, it is just a desiccated calculating machine, but it will generate for you a piece of music within 30 seconds that is a facsimile of human creativity. It is not very good, but it is astonishing at the same time, as a piece of technology. What will happen is that the major labels will go into negotiations. They would have had a stronger hand, actually, in some ways, if the Government could have found their way to support the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, put forward—but they will go into those negotiations. In fact, they will probably come to some kind of deal where they will agree some kind of licence. It will not be a very lucrative one, because their power at the moment is weak, unless Governments start standing up for the right of intellectual property. In exchange, they will try to take a bit of equity in those businesses. The people who will be left out of the room—as usual—will be the creators. The big labels will be in there. The Lucian Grainges of this world will be in there. He recently paid himself more in one year than every songwriter in this country as the head of Universal. The Musicians’ Union will not be represented in there. Equity will not be represented in there. The Writers’ Guild will not be represented in there. The representatives of visual artists will not be represented in those talks. As usual, the deal that is done will favour those people who have control over some of those rights and will leave out the creators from those talks. I urge the Government, in what has come of all this, to make use of a thing that was created and actually came out of a Bill that I introduced and from the work of a Select Committee in the other place in the last Parliament, namely the Intellectual Property Office, the creators’ round table, which has been created by this Government. I give credit to Minister Bryant for taking it very seriously and pushing people hard to make sure that creators are remunerated. I urge the Government to make use of that and to make sure that they insist that creators are represented in these discussions going forward, and that they use all the leverage they can to ensure that that happens. Taking on board what the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, I completely agree with what she said about her voice. We should introduce new rights for creators—it is not original but I always call them VINL rights: voice, imagine, name and likeness rights—to ensure that people’s voice, image, name and likeness cannot be stolen and used by others to make a profit without them being properly consulted and rewarded for that. There is good to come out of this. Although I cannot walk through the Lobby with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, today, because I believe that, if the elected House insists on not accepting this amendment —we all agree, I think, that it is not a strong amendment—

Does not my noble friend appreciate that sending this amendment back to the elected House will, for the first time, give it a choice? There has been no choice for anybody in the elected House. There has been no government amendment; it has just been yes or no. Sending this back forces a choice, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said. It cannot be sent back again. I speak as someone who did 27 years there and suffered ping-pong, but I am sticking with the noble Baroness today.

I have enormous respect for my noble friend and find myself agreeing with him about a great number of things. However, it could be sent back with an amendment in lieu from the Government—that is true—as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, pointed out, because this is not double insistence. I feel, and always felt in my 23 years in the other place, that, once the elected House has taken a strong view on a particular amendment, it should be accepted by the unelected House. That is my view, even if it is not the view of my noble friend.

My Lords, I will be mercifully brief. We have heard a lot of powerful eloquence about property rights, both in this debate and in the days that preceded it. There is much in that to agree with. I hope that those who have spoken so well on this topic today will speak up as enthusiastically when the property rights of others who are perhaps less good at presenting their case are threatened with theft—for example, via the compulsory purchase coming to this House soon.

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I need to declare my interest. I was in a bookshop and a lady of, let us say, a certain number of years scuttled over to me and said, “You’re Michael Dobbs, aren’t you? I’ve always wanted to meet you and tell you that I read one or two pages of your book before I fall fast asleep at night”. I am glad that the noble Baroness’s experience was rather better—though I took it as a compliment. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and so many others, I am desperately sad that we are where we are. This is not just a disagreement about the Bill. This has become a more fundamental disagreement about the rights and the responsibilities of the Government—their right to get their legislation through and their responsibility to listen. The Government Front Bench insists that it is listening, but not even their Back Benches believe that. In the first round of ping-pong, Ministers managed to get only 125 Members to vote for them, on what I assume was a whipped vote. The Government soldiered on, but, in the second round of ping-pong, their vote fell. In the third round, on Monday, their numbers fell yet again. It was a little like watching Napoleon’s retreat through the snow from Moscow. On Monday, only 116 stumbled through the drifts in the government Lobby, which included all the officer class on the payroll—although I see that the screws appear to be on today. That 116 was despite, if I may say so, a gallant intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle—many of us will remember that. It was a brave speech in support of the Government; indeed, it was the only speech in support of the Government. From every corner and every Bench in this House, even the Government’s own Benches, the plea has gone up: please listen. The Government have not responded. They have given us nothing but silence; the silence of a forest in winter, frozen and unbending. It is so strange and so unnecessary. They have changed their mind on so many other things—even winter fuel payments, I understand—but not on this. I suggest to the Government that they are using up their credit in this Chamber and they cannot be surprised if, in future days, when the snow melts and their way turns to mud, as it does for all Governments, the courtesies that they expect from this Chamber are not given as willingly as they might be. When the conventions of this House are so blithely ignored, they cannot always be easily rebuilt. Ping-pong is not a game. It is a most profound expression of the right of this House to ask the Government to listen to its advice. That advice has been given with more eloquence, more persistence, and indeed more authority and passion than I can ever recall. It would not surprise me if Elton John were to write a new song about it— “Candle in the Wind”, or perhaps “fading footsteps in the snow”, along with the fading rights of every copyright holder in the country. Noble Lords may laugh if they wish, but 2.4 million people, their families and their friends will not think it a laughing matter. I find it a great shame. I leave it to others to decide whether it is also deeply shameful.

My Lords, I have not spoken previously on this issue, and I do not have the creative abilities of so many noble Members of this House, but I have listened repeatedly to these debates. It is right now to speak briefly in support of protecting our creative industries so that we can continue to reap the ripe rewards of their efforts. We have to consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, whose interests are being protected here. We have a duty to protect the wonderful creativity of our own country, which gives us so much pleasure and informs, educates and develops us in more ways than anything else can. We are under no obligation to protect others, but we are under an obligation to protect the interests of our people, not of massive tech industries. I will support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, because her amendment is the right thing to do. Even at this late stage, His Majesty’s Government could choose to act positively to respond to the massive concern that has been articulated in your Lordships’ House. If they do not do so, I very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will seek to call a Division on this matter.

Yesterday, in another place, Conservative MPs voted proudly for the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, including my fellow members of the shadow DCMS team, and they stand ready, I am sure, to do the same again, if necessary. I understand the reticence of many noble Lords for prolonged rounds of ping-pong, but I have to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, pointed out, this is not unprecedented. We would not be in this position if the Government had not wasted the first two opportunities by hiding behind points of process on financial privilege rather than engaging with the substance of the argument that the noble Baroness put. The Bill began in your Lordships’ House, and the noble Baroness is right to insist upon this; there are important points of principle at stake about the protection of private property and the dignity of labour. This is not the point that would kill the Bill; it would ask the Government to come forward with a bit more compromise and respect than they have shown so far. I am proud to be a member of a revising Chamber that stands up for those principles and that power of scrutiny.

17:30:00

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, said from the Government Benches that his Government have handled this issue badly. I think he used the word “appallingly”. That is indisputable. The question I have is, why? I suggest that the answer may have been stated by my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool. He put his finger on the point, referring to the concern of the United States Administration to protect the interests of AI companies. Noble Lords may know that the head of the United States Copyright Office was sacked last month, the day after she published a report identifying the importance of AI companies respecting copyright rights. I have a question for the Minister, which I hope she will answer frankly. She said in her opening remarks that she recognised the importance of transparency. Will she tell the House, in the interests of transparency, what weight the Government have given to the concerns of the United States Government in resisting the repeated amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, over the last few weeks?

Before the noble Lord sits down, on Monday I asked almost precisely the same question of the Government and asked for a guarantee that no side deals or side understandings, or anything like that, had been done regarding the trade agreement we have with the United States. No answer has yet been forthcoming; I wish the noble Lord well in his adventure.

I am delighted to be associated with the noble Lord on this, as on many other topics.

I am sorry to interrupt these exchanges, which are of great interest. I have not been able to participate in ping-pong for some time, but the House will be aware that I am very keen on the issues being discussed and have been involved in a number of Bills on which issues of a similar nature have arisen. I have been working with a group, keeping in touch on WhatsApp—the fashionable thing to do these days—and we had a broad approach to this, which I am afraid is now fragmenting. My noble friend Lord Knight has traitorously said that he is going to come back into the fold, and I wish him well with that. The very fine speeches made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, have been misinterpreted by this House, and I regret that. She is absolutely right in asking us to look again at this. If she is successful with her Motion, it is right and appropriate that at last, the Commons has a chance to put forward a proposal which would be in everybody’s interest as a compromise based very closely on—but, ironically, not the same as—the amendment she has been forced, by the system of ping- pong, to put down today. The right amendment was suggested some time ago—I was involved in discussions around that, but it received short shrift. It would allow the Government to have the power to bring forward by regulation measures required to deal with the ongoing and accelerating crisis, which is increasingly difficult to understand, concerning the way in which creative rights are being stolen and theft exercised on a grand scale. The amendment does not have a timescale or a period over which it can be looked at maturely; it does not rely on consultation; it is a judgment. It is that trust in the decision I want to be taken by my Government that is important to stress, not some of the other issues raised today. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, was right to reflect on the fact, picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that although this is not the first time the House has been faced with a difficult issue, it is the first time it has been frustrated by inappropriate processes and procedures. Let us have a debate on what we can do to get ourselves to a better place. The issues have been well explained. I reflect on the work we did on the Online Safety Bill, when I said from the Opposition Benches—unscripted, and with slight trepidation that I would be shot down—that I did not want to work in opposition to the Government on a Bill for which there was no political disadvantage on either side, and that we wanted to use the talents, skills and expertise so often found in this House to get the best Bill possible. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, nodding, because we worked well together. It was really difficult to do, because the system is set up to provide opposition to anything that challenges the supremacy of the Bill as introduced. Even the noble Lord had long and difficult times persuading his own side that there was a case to make on moving forward. This is exactly the same issue. There is not a huge difference in where we want to get to. The Government have moved, but they lack the flexibility that we think will be necessary in the next few months—or even years—to bring forward at the appropriate time the transparency that everybody knows has to be there. There are other things that need to be looked at, such as copyright, but they can be dealt with in time. However, transparency is at the root of this. I urge the Government to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others—I offer to participate in any necessary discussions—to get to a point where everyone can relax, knowing that the main issue is dealt with and we have a clearly articulated programme that will take us forward at the appropriate time, in the Government’s judgment. That is what we need.

My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for long. I have sat through every stage of the Bill and not uttered a word. I have been absorbing the debate, and I am still puzzled as to why the Government are not willing to reach agreement with some of the wonderful statements being made. I have two issues to reflect on. The first is that the creative arts have had a fantastic campaign, but it would be a mistake to think that this is only about the creative arts; it is to do with any property right where copyright is involved. The first to fall would probably be the creative arts, but anybody who is protected by copyright will be affected by AI in one way or another, unless you follow the wonderful wisdom of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. The second point is one for the Government to reflect on. They need to remember the words of Francis Pym, the first Foreign Secretary in Mrs Thatcher’s Government. They had a very big majority, and he dared to suggest to the Iron Lady that big majorities never make for good government. Why? Because you can rely on even those who do not listen to the debate to turn up and vote for your side. You know what happened to Francis Pym? He lost his job. How much will the Labour Government reflect on the experience of Francis Pym?

My Lords, I once again declare an interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society, and once again give the staunch support of these Benches to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on her Motion A1. She made an incontestable case once again with her clarion call. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and others in saying that we are not in new territory. I have a treasured cartoon on my wall at home that relates to the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill as long ago as 2001, showing Secretary of State Alan Milburn recoiling from ping-pong balls. Guess who was hurling the ping-pong balls? The noble Earl, Lord Howe, that notable revolutionary, and I were engaging in rounds of parliamentary ping-pong—three, I think. Eventually, compromises were reached and the Bill received Royal Assent in April 2001. What we have done today and what we are going to do today as a House is not unprecedented. There is strong precedent for all Benches to work together on ping-pong to rather good effect. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, says, what we are proposing today will not, in the words of the Minister, “collapse” the Bill: it will be the Government’s choice what to do when the Bill goes back to the Commons. I hugely respect the noble Lord, Lord Knight, but I am afraid that he is wrong. It was not a manifesto commitment; there is no Salisbury convention that can be invoked on this occasion. It has nothing at all to do with data adequacy except that the Government feel that they have to get the Bill through in order to get the EU Commission to start its work. If anything, the Bill makes data adequacy more difficult. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that I agree with almost everything he said: everything he said was an argument for the noble Baroness’s amendment. Once again, as ever, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, as I so often do on these occasions. I regard him as the voice of reason, and I very much hope that the Government will listen to what he has to say. Compromise is entirely within the gift of the Government. The Secretary of State should take a leaf out of Alan Milburn’s book. He did compromise on an important Bill in key areas and saw his Bill go through. I am afraid to say that the letter that Peers have received from the Minister is simply a repeat of her speech on Monday, which was echoed by Minister Bryant in the Commons yesterday. The Government have tabled these new amendments, which reflect the contents of that letter. Despite those amendments, however, the Government have not offered a concession to legislate for mandated transparency provisions within the Bill, which has been the core demand of the Lords amendments championed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for the reasons set out in the speeches we have heard today. In the view of these Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, other Members of this House, and countless creatives have made the absolutely convincing case for a transparency duty which would not prejudge the outcome of the AI and copyright consultation. We have heard the chilling points made by the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Pannick, about US policy in this area and about the attitude of the big tech companies towards copyright. We are at a vital crossroads in how we ensure the future of our creative industries. In the face of the development of AI and how it is being trained, we must take the right road, and I urge the Government to settle now.

My Lords, given where we are, I will speak very briefly, but I will make just two points. First, I think it is worth saying that the uncertainty surrounding where we are with AI and copyright is itself damaging, not just to the creative sector, not just to AI labs and big tech in general, but to all those who will themselves be impacted by the Bill’s many other provisions. Overall, I think it is worth reminding ourselves that this is an important Bill whose original conception did not even address AI and copyright. It carried very important and valuable provisions—as the Minister pointed out in her opening remarks—on digital verification services, smart data schemes, the national underground asset register and others. These can genuinely drive national productivity. Indeed, that is why my party proposed them when we were in government. It is, therefore, deeply frustrating that the Government have not yet found a way forward on this, and I am afraid that I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Knight. The way the Government have gone about this has been reprehensible: I think that is the word I would use.

17:45:00

Obviously, I do not know how matters today are going to conclude, but should the outcome go against them I urge the Government to strain every sinew, listen to the House, work closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and find a way to make it happen to end this chaotic period of uncertainty that helps nobody. That said, as I said on Monday, as a responsible Opposition we do not wish to engage in protracted ping-pong and will ultimately simply respect the will of the elected Chamber.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today and throughout this process. Colleagues have spoken consistently with passion and eloquence, as befitting the many, varied and celebrated interests that noble Lords have in the creative industries. As I have said on numerous occasions and feel I do not need to repeat, this Government are absolutely committed to the creative industries. We want them to flourish, and we have a plan to achieve this. I am grateful to noble Lords who took the time to read the letter I sent to Members of your Lordships’ House last night, which, I hope, sets out more clearly our approach to these important issues. Given our debates to date and the letter, I will spare the House a full repetition of our position. However, our concern remains that any legislation mandated now, whether a draft Bill or regulations, will prejudge all the work required and result in laws that are not fit for purpose. Contrary to some of the suggestions we have heard today, the Government have been listening carefully throughout the Bill’s passage. The Government have set out a plan to deal with this issue which includes additional compromises that respond to specific concerns raised by noble Lords in this House which have been put on the face of the Bill and would be strengthened if the House supports Motion A. I agree with my noble friend Lord Brennan that once the working groups get going it is vital that the creative sector has a voice in them. Of course it is our intention to deliver that. The next step, which I know that noble Lords are keen to take, is simply to get on with it. The quicker the Bill is passed, the sooner we can put more resources into resolving the issues that noble Lords have raised. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that we need to work together to find a solution that is appropriate for the UK, not for other countries, which will obviously have their own agendas. I also make it absolutely clear that there are no side deals in any agreement in the trade deal with the US. Unless and until we reach Royal Assent we are basically stuck in limbo. We need to move on. I know noble Lords have spoken in support of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and she herself has called for action now, but we believe that the noble Baroness’s current amendment as drafted would take a long time to implement. It is intended to take effect after the proposals that we have set out in the Bill. We have heard concerns about expediency and have tested how quickly we can pave a clear way forward, ensuring that all elements are considered in the round. I say to my noble friend Lord Brennan that of course we are aware of the urgency of this. This is why we will publish the economic impact assessment and the report the Bill requires within nine months. This will ensure that we are ready to act as soon as possible while also having sufficient time to consider all views and options. If the report and economic impact assessment are not published within six months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State has made it clear that he will lay before Parliament a Statement setting out progress towards their publication. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked for clarification on the copyright situation. The Government are clear that copyright must be complied with when copies are made to train AI models. This means that licences are required from copyright owners but in some circumstances a copyright exception may apply. If copying takes place in other jurisdictions, that country’s laws will apply. The law in this area is complex and disputed and it is not appropriate for us to comment on the litigation which noble Lords will know is currently before the courts. We recognise calls for greater legal clarity and this is why we have consulted and are now developing options for the way forward. Noble Lords have raised the constitutional issue that we are dealing with today. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said in her letter that the Bill is unusual as it started in the Lords and that, if the Lords insisted, the Government would have to accept the amendment or let the Bill fall. I will make our position absolutely clear: the primacy of the House of Lords applies equally to Bills that start in the Lords and in the Commons. This primacy is necessary for a democratic society. The views of MPs elected by the public should be respected, and the House of Commons has expressed its view on the issue of AI and copyright three times already.

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that, if the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is carried, it will not scupper the Bill, but rather the Bill will go back to the Commons, where the Commons can provide an amendment in lieu. Therefore, the ball would be in the Commons’ court and the Government’s court; it will not scupper the Bill if we vote for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

Could the Minister also just clarify her point about the primacy of the House of Commons? She just seemed to imply the opposite.

We regard the primacy of the House of Commons as absolutely paramount. As I have stated, at the end of the day if we are not careful, we will get into a situation—which I think the noble Baroness was beginning to raise—where we will not be able to accept the primacy of the House of Commons. To us, that is absolutely paramount. Passing the Bill will also let us get on with delivering the other measures it contains, many of which have been championed by noble Lords for some time— and I welcome the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for all of these. The Bill has had broad support, which was enjoyed in the last Session too, and that is testament to the work done by this Government and the previous one on these issues, and why both our party and the Opposition advocated for the Bill and its policies during the general election. Many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, have spoken in this and other debates about the good that these measures will do. I am glad to recall her warm support during our Second Reading debate for the data preservation measures for coroners to preserve data when a child dies, and her wishes for the Bill’s swift passage to see that become law, and I agree with her. I also recall the noble Lord, Lord Clement- Jones, saying that this version of the Bill was much improved from the last, and that as we have done so much scrutiny of its predecessor, we should be able to make good progress. These policies and the significant economic benefits they will bring are why the elected House has voted in favour of the Bill’s continued passage four times in a row. It has exercised its choice. We now have to get on with the job—for the bereaved parents, the victims of deepfake intimate image abuse, the charities that want to use the soft opt-in and the businesses keen to benefit from the use of smart data and all the many and various benefits of the measures and manifesto commitments in the Bill. I urge your Lordships to accept the Government’s new amendments and let the Bill pass into law, rather than moving us to the precipice where we could face collapsing it entirely.

I am very disturbed that the Minister says there is a potential for the Bill to collapse, with all the important measures within it. If the other place chooses to collapse the Bill, can she tell me which Cabinet Minister or adviser will take responsibility for what is clearly an unprecedented legislative and political failure?

As I keep saying, the primacy of the House of Lords—sorry, the House of Commons—is absolutely vital.

Oh!

Noble Lords can laugh about this, but it is a really serious issue that is absolutely fundamental to our democracy. The House of Commons has made its position clear on a number of occasions now, and it is not right that the House of Lords continues to try and overturn that.

My Lords, I have listened with great respect to the Minister, but she has stated repeatedly that we are going to deprive the country of all the other measures in the Bill that are accepted. That is not the case. It is not necessary for the Bill to collapse at all; what is necessary is for the Government to take some positive action. It would be appropriate for her to accept that in her closing remarks and confirm that, if this House votes in favour of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the Bill will not collapse.

As I have said, there is a danger that the Bill will collapse if the Lords continues in its current form, and that is not what any of us want. I hope that everybody here accepts the primacy of the House of Commons, which is absolutely fundamental to our democracy. Lastly, I give my thanks to the public servant whose character and motives were questioned in the House on Monday. Public servants are not able to defend themselves when attacked, and instead of criticism they deserve our thanks. I want to take the opportunity to recognise their long record of distinguished and dedicated public service, not just under this Government but also the previous ones. At times, it has felt like this debate has indeed brought us to the edge of reason. I hope that today your Lordships’ House will unite around our approach and the fundamental constitutional principles by supporting Motion A in my name.

My Lords, I will start by reiterating something I said in my opening remarks to make it absolutely clear to anyone who was not in the Chamber at that time. If we vote on this amendment, one of three things will happen: the Commons can consider the amendment and accept it; the Commons can put an amendment in lieu, or—and as the noble Lord said, this would be inexplicable—the Commons can collapse the Bill. That is the situation. I also say to the House that, when I set that out in my opening remarks, I also said that if we choose to vote on this and successfully pass it, I will accept anything that the Commons does. The Commons can accept the amendment; it can put in its own in lieu or it can collapse the Bill, but I will not stand in front of your Lordships again and press our case. I have made that utterly clear, and I want that to be on the record before anybody makes up their mind about what they are going to do today. I also say to my friends on the Labour Benches—if I can bypass the normal convention—that the Government have not listened. I am afraid that the Government told me before we had our debate on Monday that they would overturn the amendment, and they overturned it in 36 minutes; they did not take the full hour. This whole palaver is not a constitutional crisis, but it is an attempt to get the convention whereby this House is heard by the other House, they bring something back and we compromise. I understand and believe in the pre-eminence of the elected Chamber, and I want everybody to know that—in fact, when the Lord Speaker had me on his podcast, I said, “I am a turkey that will vote for Christmas”. The other thing that I must say before we get on with this—I beg your Lordships’ forgiveness—is that I was disturbed by the Minister suggesting that I would do anything to undermine the whole of the Bill. It will not be my choice. Those amendments in the Bill to do with bereaved parents and the coroners were amendments in my name and the names of other noble Lords around this House and were the result of a similar campaign to what I am trying to do right now. I resent that.

18:00:00

I understand that it was probably someone else who wrote the “edge of reason” joke, but it is not funny. Like the Minister, I take this very seriously. I am not standing here trying to crash the Bill. In fact, before taking this move, I worked out with the Public Bill Office that I would not be able to crash the Bill.

Finally, I am so delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, back in his place. This is our last chance to ask the Government to protect the property rights and wages of our citizens. If we do not vote for this amendment, the Government cannot do the right thing. I said on Monday that there are better amendments than this. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is correct. I urge the Government to come back with an amendment that looks more like the one that we passed a couple of weeks ago than the one that we may or may not pass today.

I had a sleepless night wondering about this moment and what to do. I have decided that I am prepared to lose, because I know that there are thousands of people out there who are asking their elected Government to stand by their property, their livelihood and our second most important wealth-building industrial sector. If we do not do that now, we know that no one else will do it. If that is what it means to be a noble Lord and to challenge, then I am challenging the Government to please come back with something meaningful that has a timeframe and a vehicle for transparency. The noble Baroness is right that those things must happen; I agree with her on that, but they will take two, three or four years and, by that time, it will be too late for the creative industries.

I ask the House to protect the right of any person—the moral right and the financial right—to control and benefit from their own work. In my view, anything else is stealing. I seek the agreement of the House.

1|18:03|221|116|Division on Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)|Motion A1 agreed.||0|0