Baroness Kidron:

Moved by Baroness Kidron

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

In moving Amendment 44A, I shall also speak to Amendments 61 to 65 in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Freyberg. I registered my interests in Committee, but I begin by restating that I am a copyright holder. I am married to a copyright holder, and I have deep connections with many in the creative communities who are impacted by this issue. I am also an adviser to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford, and I have the pleasure and privilege of working alongside dozens of people whose businesses and academic interests relate solely to AI.

Until last night, I had a very technical argument about the amendments—about what they would do and how they would work. But I sat in the Gallery of the other place for several hours last night to listen to the debate on the creative industries, and I listened virtually to what I did not see from the Gallery, and it really made me reconsider my approach today. It was striking that, whether on the Green, DUP, Liberal Democrat or Conservative Benches, or the Government’s own Back Benches, the single biggest concern in a debate that ran for hours, with many speakers, was the question of copyright and AI. Indeed, it figured in all but two or three speeches. Moreover, as I sat in the Gallery and people started to read from the Times, the Mail, Politico and the tech blogs, an increasing flow of MPs, many on the Government’s own Benches and some actually in the Government, texted me to say that their leadership was wrong and they hoped this fight would be won for the UK’s creative industries.

It is a very great privilege to be on these Benches and never have to vote against the Whip. But I say to my friends and colleagues on all sides that, as we debate today, hundreds of organisations and many individual rights holders are watching. They are watching to see what this House will do in the face of a government proposal that will transfer their hard-earned property from them to another sector without compensation, and with it their possibility of a creative life, or a creative life for the next generation.

The Government are doing this not because the current law does not protect intellectual property rights, nor because they do not understand the devastation it will cause, but because they are hooked on the delusion that the UK’s best interests and economic future align with those of Silicon Valley. The Minister will say to the House that a consultation is ongoing and we should wait for the results. This was the same line the Minister in the other place, Chris Bryant, took last night; he said that his door and his mind were open. If that is the case, I would like to know why the honourable Dame Caroline Dinenage, the chair of the Commons Select Committee, said she felt “gaslit” by Ministers and the Secretary of State.

I would also like to know why the Minister in charge of the Bill in the other place has refused a meeting with me twice and why the creative industries say that they get blandishments from a junior Minister while the AI companies get the undivided attention of the Secretary of State. Most importantly, the assertion that the consultation is open and fair is critically undermined because it was launched with a preferred option. For the record, the Government’s preferred option is to give away the property rights of those who earned them on the promise of growth, growth, growth to the nation. Unfortunately, the Government cannot say to whom that growth will accrue or how much it will be. But the one thing they are absolutely sure of—Government, Opposition, AI companies and those whose property rights the Government are giving away—is that it will not accrue to the creative industries.

We have before us the most extraordinary sight of a Labour Government transferring wealth directly from 2.4 million individual creatives, SMEs and UK brands on the promise of vague riches in the future. Before I turn to the Opposition—which I will—I make it clear that there is a role in our economy for AI, there is a role in our economy for companies headquartered elsewhere, there is a role in our economy for new AI models and there is an opportunity of growth in the combination of AI and creative industries. But this forced marriage, on slave terms, is not it.

We have the Government, putting growth front and centre, stunting one of their most lucrative industries, and the equally extraordinary sight of the Conservative Opposition for the most part sitting on their hands, against the wishes of many in their tribe, putting party ahead of country because they prefer to have proof of the Government’s economic incompetence rather than protect the property rights of their citizens and creative industries.

Let me kill a few sacred cows. Judges, lawyers and academics all agree that the law on copyright is clear, and the ICO determination that copyright stands in spite of the advances of AI is also clear. Ministers choosing to mirror the tech lobbyist language of uncertainty rather than defending the property rights of citizens and wealth creators is bewildering. They are not quoting the law or the experts; they point at the number of court cases as proof of lack of clarity. But I am at a loss, since a person who has had their goods stolen relying on their legal rights seems to be a sign that the law is clear.

However, given the scale of the theft and the audacity of the robber barons, they should be able to turn to the Government for protection—rather than suggesting that we redefine the notion of theft. The Minister, the honourable Chris Bryant, said last night that change is needed and that we cannot do nothing, and the unified voices of the creative industries—from the biggest brands such as Sony and Disney to newspapers such as the Telegraph, the FT and the Guardian, and those who represent publishers, musicians or visual artists and the artists themselves—all agree. Nobody is saying that we should leave it as it is. They are saying, “Make the copyright regime fit for the age of AI”—which is exactly what the amendments do.

The amendments surface the names and owners of the crawlers that currently operate anonymously, record when, where and how IP is taken and, crucially, allow creators to understand what has been taken so that they can seek redress. This is not new, burdensome regulation—and it is certainly less regulation than the incredibly complex, costly and ultimately unworkable opt-outs or rights reservation mechanism of the preferred option of the consultation. All that creators are asking for is the enforcement of an existing property right. And when I say “creators”, I am not talking about 19th-century aristocrats occupying the time between lunch and dinner. In spite of the immense pleasure and extraordinary soft power that the creative industries bring, it is a hard-nosed, incredibly competitive and successful sector. It takes training, skill and talent to pursue what is often an insecure career, in which the copyright of career highs pays for the costs of a freelance life and the ongoing costs of making new work.

In the other place last night, the Minister talked about transparency without reference to the fact that the tech lobby is already on manoeuvres, saying that transparency must not be too detailed because it will impact on their IP. Creatives’ IP is being given away for literally nothing, but AI companies wish to hide behind the IP of products that are simply impossible to make without the raw material of that data. So will the Minister explain why the Government pay for software licences, why our NHS pays for drugs and why members of the Cabinet pay for branded clothes, yet the Government think that the creative industries should invent something for nothing?

The Government say that doing nothing is not an option. I agree—they could call a halt to the theft, instruct the ICO and the IPO now or even do an impact assessment of their preferred policy. This is the most extraordinary thing. They have a preferred way forward but, when I asked, they had to admit that they had not done an economic impact assessment, including of job displacement, even while acknowledging that job losses were inevitable. The Prime Minister cited an IMF report that claimed that, if fully realised, the gains from AI could be worth up to an average of £47 billion to the UK each year over a decade. He did not say that the very same report suggested that unemployment would increase by 5.5% over the same period. This is a big number—a lot of jobs and a very significant cost to the taxpayer. Nor does that £47 billion account for the transfer of funds from one sector to another. The creative industries contribute £126 billion per year to the economy. I do not understand the excitement about £47 billion when you are giving up £126 billion.

The Government have a preferred option, but they have no enforcement mechanism. They have a preferred option, but no protocols to make it work. They have a preferred option but, by their own admission, no idea how an individual artist could hope to chase down dozens, hundreds or maybe thousands of AI companies to opt out or trace their work and rights. They have a preferred option, which is to give away other people’s livings and their vast contribution to the Treasury, and with that the jobs, joy and soft power of our creative industries that the country relies on globally.

There are plenty of great ideas about how creativity could add GDP to the country, but that is not the demand that the Government have made of the sector. I will not quote most of those to whom I have spoken in the last week, because the language is unparliamentary. However, I will pass on the deep regret of Lord Lloyd- Webber that he is no longer in his place to stand by me today. I will also pass on the words of a Labour donor, who said that this was economically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

My Lords, I strongly support Amendments 44A and 61 to 65 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who is to be congratulated on raising this incredibly important and timely subject, her doughty leadership on these issues, and an absolutely first-class speech. I regret that I was unable to take part in Committee.

I will talk about the profound significance of these amendments for the media, although they are equally important across all the creative industries, which I know we will hear about. I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and note my other interests in the register.

The key point is that an effective, enforceable and comprehensive copyright regime is absolutely fundamental to the sustainability of a free, independent media. Without it, the media cannot survive. Publishers have to invest huge amounts of money in high-quality journalism, investigative reporting, world-class comment and content. That they can do so is because copyright laws protect this content, ensuring the commercial viability of publishers —print and broadcast—as well as the livelihoods of individual journalists and freelancers.

We talk a lot in this House about the threats to the free media resulting from digital, which smashed to pieces the business model that once sustained publishing and quality journalism. Publishers from across the spectrum have found innovative ways to adapt to that and produce new paths to commercial success to maintain their investment in independent investigation and reporting, which is the very lifeblood of a democracy. Parliament, with cross-party support, has assisted through the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, which establishes a tough competition regime to control the untrammelled power of vast, unaccountable platforms. But just when the media has been successfully adapting to the new world, along comes a far graver threat—AI—and government proposals flying in the face of the DMCC Act to weaken, through a sweeping text and data-mining exception, the UK’s gold-standard copyright regime, which is the absolute bedrock of quality, independent, regulated media.

I know how strongly noble Lords opposite and from across the House value the fundamental role our free media plays in our democratic society, because without it, all of our freedom is in peril. The Bill and the connected government consultation will either help it or kill it; I am afraid it is as stark as that. Of course I welcome the Government’s apparent aim to provide transparency and facilitate licensing, but their preferred option of an exception—on which there has been no impact assessment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said—is fundamentally flawed and wholly impractical.

Instead, we need with these amendments to ensure three things happen to make investment in journalism possible through an effective legal regime protecting copyright, creativity and innovation. That is transparency, the power of control over how news content is used, and fair remuneration. Only that will drive the dynamic licensing market that is necessary to ensure both the media and AI sectors flourish and grow. These imaginative amendments will achieve that by expanding UK copyright law to cover any AI model linked to the UK, compelling, in a strikingly simple way, AI firms to provide information about how they scrape content and what they scrape, and ensuring we have the enforcement powers necessary to make big tech—which is so adept at arrogantly ignoring what it does not like and what this House says—take notice. That is why I will support these amendments, and I am proud to do so.

I must add that I am deeply disappointed that the long-standing commitment of my party to upholding the values of a free press and supporting the sustainability of the British media has not extended to formal support for these amendments. It is incredibly short-sighted.

If these amendments pass, as I hope they will, this legislation can complete a landmark trio of laws—with the Online Safety Act and the DMCC Act—to make the giant platforms regulated and accountable. Like others in this debate, I want to make it clear that I support the noble Baroness’s absolutely vital amendments not because I am anti-AI but because I am pro free independent media, pro the creativity which fuels it, and pro the commercial foundations that support it.

If these amendments are successful, we can create a situation where the tech and AI sectors can flourish alongside the creative industries, thereby powering economic growth between them. Because of the vital role the media plays in our democracy, I genuinely believe that this is one of the most crucial debates that we will have in this Parliament. I have this stark warning: without adequate transparency, control and reward, publishers will no longer be able to invest as they have in the creation of the original, high-quality investigative content on which our democracy and the accountability of those in power are based. Without that, our democracy will die in the dark at the hands of Silicon Valley, as we become dependent on the morass of fake news and social media clickbait. I strongly urge all noble Lords to support the amendments.

I am grateful to the noble, Lord Black, for daring to respond to the wonderful speech that opened the debate; I thought I might come in immediately afterwards, but I was terrified by it, so I decided that I would shelter on these Benches and gather my strength before I could begin to respond.

I feel that I have to speak because I am a member of the governing party, which is against these amendments. However, I have signed up to them because I have interests in the media—which I declare; I suppose I should also declare that I have a minor copyright, but that is very small compared with the ones we have already heard about—and because I feel very strongly that we will get ourselves into even more trouble unless action is taken quickly. I have a very clear view of the Government’s proposals, thanks to a meeting with my noble friend the Minister yesterday, where he went through, in detail, some of the issues and revealed some of the thinking behind them; I hope that he will come back to the points he made to me when he comes to respond.

There is no doubt that the use of a copyright work without the consent of the copyright owner in the United Kingdom is an infringement, unless it is “fair dealing” under UK copyright law. However, because of the developments in technology—the crawlers, scrapers and GAI that we have been hearing about—there is a new usage of a huge number of copyright works for the training of algorithms. That has raised questions about whether, and if so how, such usage has to be legislated for as “fair dealing”—if it is to be so—or in some other way, if there is indeed one.

It is right, therefore, for the Government to have required the IPO to carry out a consultation on copyright and AI, which we have been talking about. However, given the alarm and concern evident in the creative sector, we certainly regret the delay in bringing forward this consultation and we are very concerned about its limited scope. Looking at it from a long way away, it seems that this is as much a competition issue as it is a copyright issue. It seems to me and to many others, as we have heard, that the IPO, by including in the consultation document a proposed approach described as an “exception with rights reservation”, has made a very substantial mistake.

This may just be a straw-person device designed to generate more responses, but, if so, it was a bad misjudgement. Does it not make the whole consultation exercise completely wasteful and completely pointless to respond to? When my noble friend the Minister comes to respond, I hope that he, notwithstanding that proposed approach, will confirm that, as far as the Government are concerned, this is a genuine consultation and that all the possible options outlined by the IPO—and any other solutions brought forward during the consultation—will be properly considered on their merits and in the light of the responses to the consultation.

What the creative industries are telling us—they have been united and vehement about this issue, as has already been described, in a way that I have never seen before—is that they must have transparency about what material is being scraped, the right to opt in to the TDMs taking place and a proper licensing system with fair remuneration for the copyright material used. The question of whether the GAI developers should be allowed to use copyright content, with or without the permission of the copyright owner, is a nuanced one, as a decision either way will have very wide-ranging ramifications. However, as we have heard, this issue is already affecting the livelihood of our creative sector—the one that, also as we have heard, we desperately need if we are to support a sustainable creative economy and provide the unbiased information, quality education and British-based entertainment that we all value and want to see flourish.

We understand the need to ensure that the companies that want access to high-quality data and copyright material to train their AI models respect, and will be happy to abide by, any new copyright or competition regulations that may be required. However, the proposals we have heard about today—the ones that would come from the consultation, if we have to delay—will probably be very similar to the amendments before the House, which are modest and fair. We should surely not want to work with companies that will not abide by such simple requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Lords, this topic understandably arouses a lot of emotion, but it is a difficult one to resolve satisfactorily. The Communications and Digital Committee has examined the challenge of copyright in an AI world from several angles over the last couple of years, and our conclusion as a result of that work is that the tech and creative industries need to find a mutually beneficial way forward on copyright because, in this new world, they are relying on each other to succeed. The AI models and services that the tech platforms are building for consumer and commercial use, such as Chat GPT, Claude, Llama, Grok and others yet to emerge, have an insatiable and ongoing appetite for new, quality data and original content, and it is a continual supply of that content which will make them yet more sophisticated, and how each platform operator will compete in the race to dominate. What I have just described is also why the Government should not pursue copyright laws that primarily benefit foreign tech firms that are prepared to pay vast sums for energy, computing facilities and staff, but not, as we have heard, for data.

During our inquiry on large language models, we heard contrasting interpretations of existing copyright law. Our view is that the application of copyright law in the context of AI is complex, but the principles remain clear. What is needed is a framework that aligns incentives between content creators and AI firms to help them strike mutually beneficial deals. In our reports, we have called for that framework to include: a transparency mechanism to allow rights holders to check for infringements; much better technical and legal enforceability; and measures to support a new market in responsible AI training data.

I am pleased to say that the amendments in this group from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Camrose, reflect these objectives, but I would like to make some further comments on the way forward. While the Communications and Digital Committee has welcomed the Government’s copyright consultation as a step forward in making progress on this issue, we have cautioned strongly against adopting a flawed opt-out regime comparable to the version operating in the EU. Indeed, Matt Clifford’s recommendation that we adopt that EU model is the only part of his excellent AI Opportunities Action Plan that I disagree with.

That said, ensuring the UK remains competitive in this global market is vital, and some might argue, contrary to what the noble Baroness has said, that the arrival of DeepSeek brings that into sharper focus. It is why I suspect the Government prefer an opt-out model. What we as a committee argue is that if, after their consultation, the Government decide to go ahead with an opt-out model, it must include the transparency, technical and stronger enforcement mechanisms I have already outlined and that are reflected in these amendments. What is important therefore to understand is that the amendments in this group could apply to an opt-in or opt-out model; they are flexible.

Whichever route the Government take, it is essential that, alongside the creative industries that we have heard are so important to our economy and society, the conditions are set for our domestic AI tech sector to scale and compete. UK spin-out and start-up innovators can seriously challenge existing dominant tech firms with specialist AI models and new services and applications. Not only must our copyright regime not be a barrier to entry for UK start-ups seeking to scale but the UK needs a workable framework to incentivise a dynamic licensing market to promote and seize the economic value of the high-quality data this nation holds. That could make this country an attractive AI training destination for all AI models.

Sorting all this out is urgent, and it is not easy. I worry that if we do not resolve it soon, the UK will be defined by our concerns about copyright to our detriment in the AI global race. The Government cannot wait for the courts to find a way forward; they must act swiftly once the consultation is over. This Bill is the right vehicle for doing so, and because it is what we call a Lords starter, it is yet to go through all the Commons stages; we are at the start of this process, and the Government have time.

For all the reasons I have outlined, if the noble Baroness divides the House, I will support her in voting for these amendments.

My Lords, as one of the supporters of these amendments, I support the amendment so expertly moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I declare my interest as someone with a long-standing background in the visual arts and as an artist member of DACS, the Design and Artists Copyright Society.

I thought it would be helpful to highlight and focus on just one element of the noble Baroness’s speech, specifically the issue of transparency. Here, there is a theme developing throughout the House on this issue. One of the biggest obstacles to ensuring fair pay for creators is that AI companies have not been transparent about what works they have used for training AI models. Tech companies have rebuffed transparency measures because they say that this will reveal trade secrets. While I understand that business need, it cannot come at the expense of creators. There is a way in which to make transparency measures work for both business and creators, giving access to creator representatives about the use of their work on a confidential basis to facilitate copyright licensing.

This is, after all, what data rights have done for millions of people, giving them the agency to know when their data has been used. It is entirely reasonable and possible for transparency measures to be upheld and properly enforced. Therefore, considering the significance of this issue, I should be very grateful if the Minister will confirm that transparency measures proposed in the copyright and AI consultation will not be conditional on a reservation rights system.

My Lords, I rise briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Kidron’s important amendments. I declare an interest as a visual artist.

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

My Lords, I also support these amendments so brilliantly introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. As a just-finishing member of the Communication and Digital Committee, I, too, associate myself with everything that our departing chair has just said so ably.

I am a lover of the book Why Nations Fail, written by two Nobel laureates. It charts how countries succeed and fail in adopting technology. There are two important lessons in that book. The first is that one must not turn one’s back on the technology. As we consider this very difficult issue, it is important to say that those of us in favour of these amendments are not trying to be the German boatman sinking the first steamboat, the Ottoman Empire turning its back on the printing press or the hand knitters objecting to knitting machines in Elizabethan times. We embrace AI. It will transform society for the good. That is the first important point.

The second lesson that Why Nations Fail teaches us is that, even as one embraces technology, the rule of law, property rights and giving people certainty over what they create and own are one of the other essential ingredients to success in harnessing the benefits of technology. That is why this issue matters so much. I, too, rewrote my brief remarks overnight on the back of the DeepSeek launch yesterday. I was struck by the panic among those in Silicon Valley, who thought, “Oh, my God. Is it possible that the Chinese have stolen open AI’s IP in order to create a better product?” Gosh, has Silicon Valley for a moment begun to feel what creative copyright owners have been feeling for several years? Actually, the valley is learning that certainty of copyright is an important part of driving growth in an adoption of technology.

Another interesting thing happens when you ask DeepSeek what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989. It will not tell you, so it is clear that these supposed black boxes can be quite specific about what they include and exclude. That gives me confidence, as a non-technologist, that if we give the technology companies the challenge of creating simple mechanisms for copyright owners, they will jolly well do it, because they can definitely do it when they want to exclude content from models today.

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

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

My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken on the Bill. Given the excellence of the contributions to date, I have barely felt the need to. We are indebted to the tireless work, rhetorical skill and legislative expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson. I thank them all.

I wholly support the premise of and intentions behind these amendments, although they would not strictly be necessary if we could just be patient and let the law of copyright work as it should and as it has done for over 300 years. Given the Government’s consultation on AI and copyright, and the intense pressure that they have put upon themselves to convert the UK into an engine of economic growth at all costs—sustainable or not—this is an issue of paramount and urgent importance to our creative future and to intellectual property. I offer a short contribution from my experience; after such a debate, I hope it will be additive and not repetitive.

First and foremost, I am an art historian—a cack-handed artist long astounded by the creative genius of our island nation and particularly its flourishing globalisation in the 18th and 19th centuries. Much of that soft power came through the deployment of copyright —first legislated by this Parliament in the Statute of Anne 1709. We invented copyright; it is our duty to preserve and enhance it, not to let it be sacrificed on the altar of economic growth in an unsustainable race against China and America to machine-learned dominance at the expense of human creativity.

Copyright was the child of the booksellers, the purveyors of the printed word through which knowledge spread around the world. Its first skirmishes were jurisdictional, with Scottish booksellers seeking to flood the English market, in breach of copyright, during the 1720s and 1730s. They argued that the law did not apply to them, as their processes—their printing presses—were outside the jurisdiction. Does that sound familiar? The same arguments are deployed today by the foreign generative-AI companies training their LLMs offshore to be deployed onshore. We have seen it all before: copyright succeeded then and will succeed now.

From its printed beginnings, copyright expanded to cover all new media. William Hogarth famously lobbied Parliament to apply copyright to engravings, allowing him to control distribution of his remorseless satire. He was followed soon by Gillray, Punch and our proud heritage of ridicule. Copyright then absorbed the daguerreotype and photography, the phonograph and recorded sound, the computer and, of course, the internet—when avaricious news aggregators such as Google were brought to heel and properly licensed. The suggestion that copyright is not fit for purpose and is unable to address novel technologies—not that much is new in AI—is itself ridiculous. Copyright can and will regulate AI; we just need to give it and our common-law system of justice the time to make the right decisions.

Secondly, I am an IP litigator qualified in both England and California. In that capacity, I am a member of the IP APPG that successfully lobbied the previous Government against the introduction of text- and data-mining exceptions that the AI developers so desperately seek. It is thus disappointing that the Labour Government now seek to revisit exactly the same ground and fight exactly the same battle. I am extremely grateful to the support of briefings provided by the Creative Rights in AI Coalition, and to the multitude of creative talent—both household names and those less celebrated—who have spoken out over many months in support of copyright. Their voices must be heard and it is for them that we fight.

However, it is not just the creative industries that rely upon copyright, as we have heard; it is an essential tool in support of the digital revolutions of recent decades. When in California and ever since, I was privileged to represent a number of the world’s leading technology and digital content companies. All were very happy with the fitness for purpose of copyright to protect their source code, algorithms, graphic user interfaces and digital content, as licensed by the end-user licence agreements to which we are all party. Somehow that copyright is fit for purpose and is readily enforceable in other jurisdictions. The means of enforcing it are fully sufficient and we should not believe protestations to the contrary.

In both the US and UK, major AI copyright disputes are making their way through the courts. We will have an authoritative decision by the summer. We should not rush to legislate in a judicial vacuum before really understanding how the existing law will be applied. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, confirmed to me in Oral Questions in November,

“the Government are clear that copyright law must be respected when content is used to train AI models. If copies are made of protected work, licences must be required from the copyright owner unless a specific copyright exception applies

If the courts recognise the protection of copyright and the lack of applicable exceptions, injunctive and monetary relief will follow and the market will function. Insurance policies will not cover corporates that deploy AI that is not transparent in its training processes, and such tools will no longer be offered to customers.

I am also confident that market regulators will be interested in investigating how technology giants did not unduly leverage their dominance in search and social media markets to compete unfairly with the creative industries and the human beings upon whose unlicensed endeavours their soaring profits were built; in other words, the market and its existing controls will function, licences will be issued and human creative endeavour will be recognised and rewarded. To the extent that these amendments make that more likely, they have my full support.

Finally, I note my interest as proprietor of a live music, events and heritage venue. I finish by recognising the one silver lining of this existential saga. It is to remind us, in case we have forgotten, that the best way to enjoy creative human endeavour is in person, not through a digital device: listening live to an artist, sitting in a theatre or visiting an art gallery. Artists from William Blake to Neil Young would agree that the “dark Satanic Mills” of digitally generated and digitally accessed art should never replace human experience. Likewise, machine learning should never replace human creativity.

I too support this group of amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others.

It surely goes without saying that our United Kingdom copyright law has to counter the increasing theft of intellectual property by artificial intelligence companies.

As here advocated, we should provide transparency criteria that would allow copyright holders to identify when and from where their work has been taken. I am sure that the Minister agrees with that aim and is well aware of the strong human rights back-up support available to us from the 46 states affiliation of the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom remains a prominent member. I am a recent chairman of its education committee.

As many of your Lordships know, first and foremost, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to privacy, including of personal data. Article 1 of its initial protocol protects property rights, including intellectual property rights and copyright.

Secondly, Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime prohibits system interference by, for example, the transmission of computer data; while its Article 10 stipulates:

“Offences related to infringements of copyright and related rights”.

Thirdly, Article 11 of the 2024 Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law safe- guards privacy and personal data.

Regarding copyright protection in recent centuries, we can be justly proud of our own United Kingdom record, beginning, as has already been said, with the Statute of Anne 1710, which granted legal protection to publishers of books.

In the interests of those both here and abroad, we must uphold the high standards of that tradition. The United Kingdom should guide this good practice. Adopting these amendments is a clear example of so doing.

My Lords, I declare my interests as a composer and a copyright holder. I salute the speech of my noble friend Lady Kidron for its strength and accuracy. I too feel that there should be an impact assessment on such important matters.

If noble Lords will spare me one minute, it might be worth mentioning a little bit of background. The record industry more or less ceased to exist when the internet and streaming came along. Of course, they brought enormous advantages, as I am sure AI will, but there was a huge cost. One reason why many great big pop groups have gone on tour in the last few years is that they are not earning money from records. Although there is an interest for the public to gain and disseminate more information, there is a cost for the basic product. Those records brought in money that paid for performers to be employed in studios to make new records. It is a vicious circle: once you stop that income coming in, you stop creativity in its tracks.

We heard Sir Paul McCartney mentioned, and in one sense I am representing the more contemporary classical side. But I too have worked on the pop side, and I can I tell you that a record that we made for medics in Ukraine, with the help of no lesser figures than Neil Tennant and David Gilmour, has had 400,000 downloads so far, yet will produce only about £200 to go to Ukraine. That gives you some idea of how the shift in finance has changed in respect of what records bring in. Of course we cannot go backwards—this is progress—but we do have to be careful. We should think about the example that that sets.

As I said, Paul McCartney was mentioned and, over the weekend, Sir Elton John summed up the feelings of many composers. I am sure he would not mind my representing his words to you here. He said:

“Without thorough and robust copyright protection that allows artists to earn hard-fought earnings from their music, the UK’s future place on the world stage as a leader in arts and popular culture is under serious jeopardy. It is the absolute bedrock of artistic prosperity, and the country’s future success in the creative industries depends upon it”.

I think those words would be reiterated by every composer and creator in this country.

I will make one final point. In some ways, this is not a party-political issue but a cross-party one. It is our creativity that is at stake here. I have spoken in the past about music: the problems with touring and all the things that have hemmed in creativity. We have heard about the £126 billion that the creative industries bring in. There is support on both sides of the House. The Front Bench of the Conservative Party always used to say to me, “We salute the creative industries. We admire what they do and what they bring in to the economy”. The new Front Bench is saying much the same.

But listen to Elton John and listen to Paul McCartney and, if you value the creative industries as much as you say you do, for God’s sake protect their copyright.

My Lords, I rise briefly to support these important clauses. I declare my interests as I hold copyright as a filmmaker and writer.

Copyright and IP exist to assert ownership over creative works and protect the interests of creators. This is fundamental to supporting people whose job it is to have ideas, be creative and innovate in a range of different ways. Undermining this and allowing major breaches of that protection risks undermining the whole basis of innovation and creativity within a society, and that cannot be done lightly.

Creators of generative AI models claim that they “need” more and more materials to train their models on, including materials that are the creative works of others—just as, until last week, they had claimed that they needed more and more of the latest chips. We should ask ourselves very seriously why they need these copyright-protected works. What use-cases are there for models that have been trained on copyrighted works that would not be possible with models trained on public-domain materials and works for which the rights have been properly obtained?

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

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

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

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

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

My Lords, I have reluctantly stayed out of this debate precisely because I am a copyright holder with copyrights stretching back over several decades. But, having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others, it would be entirely wrong of me to remain silent.

I have to express deep concern and disbelief that the Labour Party of Jennie Lee and of Chris Smith is proposing such a way forward. You cannot on the one hand talk about the importance to every single member of our country—whether at school or going to the high arts of opera—of the importance of the creative industries, and then, with legislation, begin their demolition.

The Government’s approach is entirely wrong. Yes, they can strip away my rights. Indeed, only last week I received the huge sum of £1.76 for a performance. But that £1.76 represented a contract between an artist and someone who used the artist’s material. We are destroying that principle of contract.

These amendments seem sensible, rational and reasonable, and they open the door for the development of AI in exactly the same way as when, as one of the officers of the British Actors’ Equity Association in the early 1990s, we were tasked with negotiating with the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 on the brilliant and new innovation of cable and satellite. We negotiated in order to try to protect artists, some hugely successful and some not so successful. Those negotiations took two years—although we do not have two years now—and at the start of them we were told that we would never reach an agreement. We reached an agreement, which has been adapted and adopted for all other forms of the use of television and audio material.

Are the Government seriously telling us that we do not have the wit, intelligence or drive as a country to come to an adequate negotiation that protects copyright and advances AI? If they are seriously telling us that, I urge noble Lords to disregard it. I urge your Lordships most of all to vote not for the Elton Johns or the Paul McCartneys but for that one person who might be relying on that £1.76, and support these amendments.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on a barnstorming speech.

Many of the points that I wanted to make have already been made by others, so I will be brief. I declare my interest as a rights holder. I am slightly worried that this is beginning to sound like special pleading, and I hope that is not the effect it has. I am also the daughter of two writers, and I recognise that £1.76, because sometimes that was it. That £1.76, as the noble Lord has just said, is a contract. There are many artists, musicians and writers in this country who get money for their books in libraries or tiny amounts of royalties, and those royalties are keeping them alive. They enable them to create original work and earn their living.

I believe that generative AI will be transformational and largely for the good. However, it is perfectly possible to distinguish between meaningful progress that advances humanity—we heard in an earlier debate about AI tracking naval ships, and brilliant advances are being made in medicine—and plain theft of intellectual property. That theft has been going on now for several years, and the people who are being stolen from are not even aware that their work has been stolen.

For that reason, I do not actually believe it is necessary to seek a balance. This is not about balance; it is about implementing and upholding the rule of law. The proposed rights reservation from the Government would reverse the fundamental principle of UK copyright law, which, as others have said, was established in 1710—I think it was 1710, not 1709, but we may differ. My mother wrote the Handbook of Copyright in British Publishing Practice in 1974, so I have some visceral memory of all this. The Government are proposing to reverse the fundamental protections that have made us a gold standard in the world. The amendments propose to make UK copyright law enforceable in an age of generative AI—to respond and expand our laws, in what is in my view an extremely proportionate way, to recognise the rights of creators.

We have all learned something in this debate that is astonishing to me: apparently the Government have not conducted an economic impact assessment of their proposals on one of our most successful industries. I find that completely shocking. It suggests a lack of seriousness on the part of this Government and those who are making these proposals, which I hope the Minister will address later.

If artists, musicians and creators cannot earn a living, there will be no original content and no more content for AI to build on. That is surely in itself an economic argument that somewhat undermines the vague idea that innovation cannot happen without the wholesale abolition of our proud tradition of copyright. Chris Bryant said last night that something must change and that we cannot do nothing. I agree, but what we must do is double down.

My Lords, I support these amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. Not to do so would be, to quote some of her earlier work, beyond the edge of reason.

I support the noble Baroness because I support creatives. They are the individuals who bring such sweet sound where otherwise there would be silence, who fill a blank page with words that can move our hearts, our souls and our minds, and can change the course of history. I support the amendments because I support the rule of law. IP and copyright are well established over centuries.

This is not complex or controversial. There is an extraordinary tedium to the whole question of TDM. Ultimately, I could do this in three words when addressing big tech: “It’s not yours. Take your audacious hands off other people’s work”. And that is from someone who is pro-innovation, pro-AI and pro-technology—but in a way where there is a negotiation and agreed conclusion as to how artists, rights holders and creatives want to engage with these technologies.

We have already heard many times, rightly, that there has been no economic impact assessment. I ask the Minister for his views on that. While on that subject, I ask him, out of genuine interest, what is the genesis of the £400 billion figure in the AI opportunities plan? Where does it come from, what is it based on and how does it sit against the impact that not acting will have on our creative sector?

I support these amendments, and I urge everyone in your Lordships’ House to do so. To misquote the late, great Dennis Potter, “Vote, vote, vote for Beeban Kidron”.

My Lords, I have come specifically to the debate on this part of the Bill especially to support these amendments. I regret that I have not played a part in any other part of the Bill, but this subject is so important that I have come—and I shall speak briefly because I support what everyone else has said.

I am coming from a totally different angle. As a judge, I tried these cases, and they worked perfectly well. We never had a problem in coming to a decision on copyright or intellectual property. I did not do very many, but I sat with judges who did it all the time. I am absolutely astonished that the Government are setting aside long-established law; whether it goes back to 1709 or 1710—whether it is the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, or the noble Earl, Lord Devon, who is right—I do not think matters. The point is that it goes back a long way, and it works. Why are the Government setting it aside instead of strengthening it, for all the reasons that have been given so far?

I wonder whether, in the absence of an impact assessment, the Government have put their mind to what is going to happen on the ground, and not just with regard to the £1.76. Is the £128 billion going to exist to go into the coffers of the Treasury? I suspect that, whatever they think they are going to make, no one from the government Benches has thought about what they are going to lose. Basically, I am asking the Government to sit back, think again and reflect with the greatest possible care on the brilliant speech of noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the unanimity across this House. Having been in this place for many years, I cannot remember another occasion where I have not heard a single voice supporting the Government. Are the Government going to listen to that?

My Lords, I can be pretty brief. We have had some fantastic speeches, started by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, with her superb rallying cry for these amendments, which we 100% support on these Benches. As she said, there is cross-party support. We have heard support from all over the House and, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has just said, there has not been a dissenting voice.

I have a long association with the creative industries and with AI policy and yield to no one in my enthusiasm for AI—but, as the noble Baroness said, it should not come at the expense of the creative industries. It should not just be for the benefit of DeepSeek or Silicon Valley. We are very clear where we stand on this.

I pay tribute to the Creative Rights in AI Coalition and its campaign, which has been so powerful in garnering support, and to all those in the creative industries and creators themselves who briefed noble Lords for this debate.

These amendments respond to deep concerns that AI companies are using copyright material without permission or compensation. With the new government consultation, I do not believe that their preferred option is a straw man for a text and data mining exemption, with an opt out that we thought was settled under the previous Government. It starts from the false premise of legal uncertainty, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords. As the News Media Association has said, the Government’s consultation is based on a mistaken idea, promoted by tech lobbyists and echoed in the consultation, that there is a lack of clarity in existing copyright law. This is completely untrue. The use of copyrighted content without a licence by gen AI firms is theft on a mass scale and there is no objective case for a new text and data mining exception.

No effective opt-out system for the use of content by gen AI models has been proposed or implemented anywhere in the world, making the Government’s proposals entirely speculative. It is vital going forward that we ensure that AI companies cannot use copyrighted material without permission or compensation; that AI development does not exploit loopholes to bypass copyright laws; that AI developers disclose the sources of the data they use for training their models, allowing for accountability and addressing infringement; and that we reinforce the existing copyright framework, rather than creating new exceptions that disadvantage creators.

These amendments would provide a mechanism for copyright holders to contest the use of their work and ensure a route for payment. They seek to ensure that AI innovation does not come at the expense of the rights and livelihoods of creators. There is no market failure. We have a well-established licensing system as an alternative to the Government’s proposed opt-out scheme for AI developers using copyrighted works. A licensing system is the only sustainable solution that benefits both creative industries and the AI sector. We have some of the most effective collective rights organisations in the world. Licensing is their bread and butter. Merely because AI platforms are resisting claims, does not mean that the law in the UK is uncertain.

Amending UK law to address the challenges posed by AI development, particularly in relation to copyright and transparency, is essential to protect the rights of creators, foster responsible innovation and ensure a sustainable future for the creative industries. This should apply regardless of which country the scraping of copyright material takes place in, if developers market their product in the UK, regardless of where the training takes place. It would also ensure that AI start-ups based in the UK are not put at a competitive disadvantage due to the ability of international firms to conduct training in a different jurisdiction.

As we have heard throughout this debate, it is clear that the options proposed by the Government have no proper economic assessment underpinning them, no technology for an opt-out underpinning them and no enforcement mechanism proposed. It baffles me why the Conservative Opposition is not supporting these amendments, and I very much hope that the voices we have heard on the Conservative Benches will make sure that these amendments pass with acclamation.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for moving this incredibly important group and all those speakers who have made the arguments so clearly and powerfully. I pay tribute to noble Baroness’s work on copyright and AI, which is so important for our arts and culture sector. As noble Lords have rightly said, our cultural industries make an enormous contribution to our country, not just in cultural terms but in economic ones, and we must ensure that our laws do not put that future at risk.

In the build-up to this debate I engaged with great pleasure with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and on these Benches we are sympathetic to her arguments. Her Amendment 61 would require the Government to make regulations in this area. We accept the Government’s assurance that this is something they will seek to address, and I note the Minister’s confirmation that their consultation will form the basis of the Government’s approach to this issue. Given the importance of getting this right, our view is that the Government’s consultation is in mid-flight, and we have to allow it to do its work. Whatever view we take of the design and the timing of the consultation, it offers for now a way forward that will evidence some of the serious concerns expressed here. That said, we will take a great interest in the progress and outcomes of the consultation and will come back to this in future should the Government’s approach prove unsatisfactory.

Amendment 75 in my name also seeks to address the challenge that the growth in AI poses to our cultural industries. One of the key challenges in copyright and AI is enforceability. Copyright can be enforced only when we know it has been infringed. The size and the international distribution of AI training models render it extremely challenging to answer two fundamental questions today: first, was a given piece of content used in a training model and secondly, if so, in what jurisdiction did that use take place? If we cannot answer these questions, enforcement can become extremely hard, so a necessary, if not sufficient, part of the solution will be a digital watermark—a means of putting some red dye in the water where copyrighted material is used to train AIs. It could also potentially provide an automated means for content creators to opt out, with a vastly more manageable administrative burden.

I thank the Minister for his constructive engagement on digital watermarking and look to him to give the House an assurance that the Government will bring forward a plan to develop a technological standard for a machine-readable digital watermark. I hope that, if and when he does so, he is able to indicate both a timeline and an intention to engage internationally. Subject to receiving such reassurances when he rises, I shall not move my amendment.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on her excellent speech. I know that she feels very strongly about this topic and the creative industries, as do I, but I also recognise what she said about junior Ministers. I have heard the many noble Lords who have spoken, and I hope they will forgive me if I do not mention everyone by name.

It is vital that we get this right. We need to give creators better, easier and practical control over their rights, allow appropriate access to training material by AI firms and, most importantly, ensure there is real transparency in the system, something that is currently lacking. We need to do this so that we can guarantee the continued success of our creative industries and fully benefit from what AI will bring.

I want to make it clear, as others have, that these two sectors are not mutually exclusive; it is not a case of picking sides. Many in the creative industries are themselves users or developers of AI technology. We want to ensure that the benefits of this powerful new technology are shared, which was a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and her committee.

It is obvious that these are complex issues. We know that the current situation is unsatisfactory in practice for the creative industries and the AI sector. That is why we have launched a detailed consultation on what package of measures can be developed to benefit both the creative industries and the AI sector. This is a genuine consultation. Many people from a range of sectors are engaging with us to share their views and evidence. It is important, and indeed essential, that we fully consider all responses provided in the consultation before we act. Not to do so would be a disservice to all those who are providing important input and would narrow our chance to get the right solution.

I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness and many other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on the importance of transparency about the creative content used to train AI. Transparency, about both inputs and outputs, is a key objective in the Government’s consultation on copyright and AI. This very ability to provide transparency is at the centre of what is required. The consultation also contains two other vital objectives alongside transparency: practical and clear control and reward for rights holders over the use of their work. This is quite the opposite of the notion of giving away their hard work or theft. It is about increasing their control and ensuring access to data for AI training.

The Government certainly agree with the spirit of the amendments on transparency and web crawlers and the aims they are trying to achieve—that creators should have more clarity over which web crawlers can access their works and be able to block them if they wish, and that they should be able to know what has been used and by whom and have mechanisms to be appropriately reimbursed. However, it would be premature to commit to very specific solutions at this stage of the consideration of the consultation.

We want to consider these issues more broadly than the amendments before us, which do not take into account the fact that web crawling is not the only way AI models are trained. We also want to ensure that any future measures are not disproportionate for small businesses and individuals. There is a risk that legislating in this way will not be flexible enough to keep pace with rapid developments in the AI sector or new web standards. A key purpose of our consultation is to ensure that we have the full benefit of views on how to approach these issues, so that any legislation will be future-proof and able to deliver concrete and sustainable benefits for the creators. The preferred option in the consultation is one proposal; this is a consultation to try to find the right answer and all the proposals will be considered on their merits.

The Government are also committed to ensuring that rights holders have real control over how their works are used. At the moment, many feel powerless over the use of their works by AI models. Our consultation considers technological and other means that can help to ensure that creators’ wishes are respected in practice. We want to work with industry to develop simple and reliable ways to do this that meet agreed standards, in reference to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose.

Technical standards are an important part of this. There are technical standards that will be required to prevent web crawlers accessing certain datasets. Standards will be needed for control at the metadata level and for watermarking. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, that standards on the use of watermarks or metadata could have a number of benefits for those who wish to control or license the use of their content with AI. Standards on the use of web crawlers may also improve the ability of rights holders to prevent the use of their works against their wishes. We will actively support the development of new standards and the application of existing ones. We see this as a key part of what is needed. We do not intend to implement changes in this area until we are confident that they will work in practice and are easy to use.

I also want to stress that our data mining proposals relate only to content that has been lawfully made available, so they will not apply to pirated copies. Existing copyright law will continue to apply to the outputs of AI models, as it does today. People will not be able to use AI as a cover for copyright piracy. With improved transparency and control over inputs, we expect that the likelihood of models generating infringing output will be greatly reduced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Lords, I want to return to the moment just before the Front-Bench speeches of the Opposition and the Government, when there was absolute agreement around the House. There were fantastic speeches from all sides, which understood AI not as competition but as a fellow traveller of the creative industries. I want to make that really clear, as all colleagues did around the House. I thank all noble Lords on both Benches who are being whipped not to vote for this for saying that they will support it. As I said at the outset, there are many hundreds of people watching this, and they want to know what the House is going to do to protect their future.

I will not address my remarks to the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose; he knows what I think. For a Conservative Party not to act on the property rights of UK citizens is a crying shame. To the Government and the Minister —to whom I keep finding myself saying, “who I like very much”—I have to say that this is not good enough. The Minister used the word “premature” twice. There may be a dispute about 09 or 10, but we seem to be in agreement on the 17 over on our Benches. It is not premature to use the copyright law to protect the property rights of British citizens.

I also noticed the slight slide around the preferred option. I am sorry, but to say it is a preferred option and then suggest that it is an open consultation is simply not correct. I also want to talk about this business of the impact assessment—and I am going to revisit this. I was in a meeting with officials, and I asked for the impact assessment. They said, “Well, there was one, but I don’t think it will suffice for you, Lady Kidron”. The reason it did not suffice for the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is because this impact assessment of AI on companies was just eight bullet points. If just one of the bullet points concerns this point about job losses and loss of income, I do not call that an impact assessment. To have a preferred option that is so catastrophic for our country’s second most effective industry—£126 billion down the drain for this magical £4.7 billion—means that I, like other noble Lords, do not understand what we are doing here.

I can see that the Chamber is filling up. Finally, on this point about international law, we have heard it all before: we heard about data law, we heard about the OSA, we heard about competition law. I wonder whether, when they do an impact assessment, the Government might consider how many creative copyright owners might like to come to the UK to ply their trade when we have our copyright laws in full order. I remember one of the first reasons Canal+ gave for making its IPO in London was our copyright laws—and it has “Paddington”.

I thank all noble Lords for speaking. They made tremendous speeches, which were educated, thoughtful and non-hysterical. These are very modest amendments, and this House has a duty to those people outside to vote on them. I will add that, at a personal level, in the 12 years I have been in your Lordships’ House I have done so many deals with the Government of the day, whichever Government that was. I have always tried to avoid voting, and I have never called a vote that I did not know I was going to win. Because of the whipping arrangements, I believe I will lose today, but we will vote. I invite those people who want the creative industries to know that we have their back to follow me through the Lobby. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Ayes 145, Noes 126.

Amendment 44A agreed.

Clause 101: Annual report on regulatory action

Amendment 45 not moved.