PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] - 14 May 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendment 49B, the Lords disagreement with the Commons in Commons amendment 52 and Lords amendments 52B and 52C engage Commons financial privilege. If any of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Clause 28

DVS trust framework

I beg to move,

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 32 to which the Lords have disagreed and disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 32B and 32C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:

That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 34B and 34C proposed instead of the words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment 34.

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 43B.

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 49B.

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 52 to which the Lords have disagreed and disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 52B and 52C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement.

That this House does not insist on Commons Amendment 55 to which the Lords have disagreed and agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 55D and 55E proposed in lieu of Commons Amendment 55.

That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendment 56B

Notwithstanding the views of the Chinese Government, it is a delight to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am only saddened that I have not been sanctioned, which feels a shame—nor by Russia, for that matter. There is still time.

I am delighted to be here today to discuss the Bill, which we last discussed in depth a week ago today. First, I would like to express how pleased I am that the other place has agreed to the Government’s amendments relating the national underground asset register and intimate image abuse. I pay tribute to all those Members of the House of Lords who took part in getting that part of the legislation to the place where it is now. I am glad we have been able to work with them. I will start by encouraging the House to agree to those amendments, before I move on to discuss the amendments relating to AI and intellectual property, scientific research, and sex and gender—in that order.

Lords amendments 55D, 55E and 56B, which were introduced to the Bill in the other place by the noble Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge, place a duty on the face of the Bill that requires the Government to: review the operation of the “reasonable excuse” defence in the offences of creating and requesting intimate image deepfakes without consent, or reasonable belief in consent; publish the outcome of the review in a report; and lay that report before Parliament. The Government were pleased to support the amendments in the other place, as we share the desire to ensure that the criminal law, and these offences in particular, work as the Government intend.

I think we all appreciate the amendment, because we want to protect vulnerable women, children and anybody who is at risk of this sort of harm. Could we not look at doing something similar to the amendment, and the carve-out we have created with it, for our creative industries? If we can protect our vulnerable people, can we not also protect our creative industries from copyright infringement by having territorial exemptions similar to what we have with deepfakes?

My hon. Friend is jumping the gun slightly—I will come on to those issues.

I want to praise Baroness Owen with regard to this part of the legislation. If it had not been for her, I do not think it would have ended up in the Bill. There was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing between her and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that we got the legislation in the right place. As I said in last week’s discussions, one of the issues was whether Baroness Owen’s original version of the second offence really worked in law; I think she agreed that our version, which we tabled in Committee, was better. We have been able to tidy up the question of the reasonable excuse. It is perfectly legitimate to ask how on earth there could be a legitimate or reasonable excuse for creating one of these images or asking for one to be created, and we went through those debates previously. I am glad that the Government have come to a settled position with Baroness Owen, and that is what I urge everybody to support here today.

The Government made a manifesto commitment to ban sexually explicit deepfakes, and the Bill delivers on that promise. For the first time, there will be punishment for perpetrators who create or ask others to create intimate deepfakes of adults without consent.

Secondly, I turn to the national underground asset register, which it does feel has been a long time coming. Of course, that is partly because the Bill is in its third iteration. Amendment 34 relates to the national underground asset register. An amendment was previously tabled in the House of Lords requiring the Secretary of State to provide guidance on cyber-security measures, which was rejected by this House. Last week, the Government tabled amendments 34B and 34C in lieu on this topic, which were drafted with the support of the security services. These amendments expand the scope from cyber-security only to general security measures, clarify the audience for the guidance and extend its reach to Northern Ireland, alongside England and Wales.

On all the amendments I have spoken to thus far, I thank our noble colleagues in the other place for their work and support to reach agreement in these areas. I urge colleagues here today to support these amendments, too; otherwise, we are never going to get the Bill through.

Will the Minister give way?

On the subject of never getting the Bill through, I will, of course, give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

One reason for getting the Bill through, one would hope, is to deliver on things like content credentials, which firms like Adobe have championed, to show who has produced a file, where the ownership sits and whether artificial intelligence has been used to edit it. Can the Minister confirm whether the Bill will deliver on that commitment on content credentials, and if not, why not?

Well, it is because the Bill was never intended to deal with copyright and artificial intelligence at all. The Government have not introduced any provision relating to AI or copyright, and I think that specific issue would probably be ruled out of scope if it were to be tabled.

There are very serious issues in relation to AI and copyright, which I am about to come on to, and I know the point the right hon. Gentleman is making on technical standards. [Interruption.] He keeps on talking at me—I am happy to give way to him again if he wants, but I cannot hear what he is saying.

My point is about AI being used to change photographs, and having the ability to see that through content credentials or the digital fingerprint. The point I am raising is that the Government themselves have still not adopted that, in terms of their official communications. Will the Bill deliver on that, and if not, why will the Government not adopt that best practice?

I am honestly failing to understand the point the right hon. Gentleman is making. The Bill is not and has never been intended to deal with the kind of issue he is referring to. As I say, I think that if somebody were to table amendments to that effect, they would be ruled out of order. The Bill does not deal with copyright or artificial intelligence; the only measures in the Bill on AI and copyright are those introduced in the House of Lords, which I am about to speak to.

Although I was not able to listen to the whole of the debate in the House of Lords the other day, the Secretary of State and I stood at the Bar of the House to listen carefully to considerable parts of the debate. I want to make two separate but interconnected points on AI and intellectual property in relation to the Bill. First, there is an urgent issue that must be addressed—namely, what is happening today, and, for that matter, one could argue what happened yesterday, last week, last year and two years ago. To be absolutely clear, I will reiterate that copyright law in the UK is unchanged. Works are protected unless one of the existing exceptions, which have existed for some time, such as exceptions for teaching and research, applies, or the rights holder has granted permission for their work to be used. That is the law. That is the law now, and it will be the law tomorrow if the House agrees with the Government and rejects the amendment tabled by Baroness Kidron and supported in the House of Lords. As I have said previously, I am glad that several creative industries have been able to secure licensing agreements with AI companies, including publishers, music labels and others, under the existing law. I want to see more of that—more licensing and more remuneration of creative rights holders.

It is wonderful to hear my hon. Friend talk about the importance of copyright and the fact that we have existing laws that we can use, but I wonder whether he is aware of the growing concern in industry about the risk of expansive US-style fair use principles creeping into UK practice and what we might do to secure our safeguards. We must not allow foreign interpretations of fair use to erode our copyright laws.

As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the US system of fair use is different from the UK’s—ours goes back to 1709, with the first of our copyright Acts, and it has been very solid. When we introduced this Bill, I said that this country should be proud of the fact that a succession of different generations have ensured that rights holders can protect their copyright. Interestingly, one of Charles Dickens’ big battles was being able to protect his copyright not only in the UK but in the United States of America, where he felt he had fewer protections. It is for us to develop our own copyright law in our own country, and I say to my hon. Friend that the law as it is will not change one jot as a result of what we are intending to do in the Bill.

I probably ought to give way first to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and then to the hon. Gentleman.

Yesterday the Minister appeared before our Select Committee and said, “The best kind of AI is the kind of AI that is built on premium content, and you can’t get premium content without paying for premium content.” Now, as well as being concerned about the overuse of the expression “premium content” in that sentence, I am also concerned about the fact that, as we speak, there are copyright works out there being scraped underhandedly by AI developers, some of whom are feigning licensing negotiations with the very rights holders whose works they are scraping. Surely now is the time to require developers to tell us what copyright works are being used to train their models and what their web-scraping bots are up to. Surely he agrees that Lords amendment 49 is a very good way to move this forward to see what works are being used to train AI models.

The first thing to say to the right hon. Lady is that I completely stand by everything I said to the Select Committee yesterday. I do believe that the best form of AI will be intelligent artificial intelligence. And just like any pipe, what comes out of it depends on what goes into it. If we have high-quality data going into AI, then it will produce high-quality data at the other end. I have spoken to quite a lot of publishing houses in the UK, including Taylor & Francis in particular—

Let me finish my point and then I will give way first to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who gets very cross if people queue-barge.

I am aware that there are quite a lot of publishing houses in the UK that are determined to secure licensing deals with AI companies, both in the UK and overseas. First, they want to ensure that those AI companies remunerate them and, secondly, they want to ensure that they have very high-quality, up-to-date information and data going into them, so that if somebody searches for immunotherapy, for instance, they will have the latest information on immunotherapy, not stuff that is five, six or seven years out of date, or that may have come from a dodgy source.

The second point I want to make is this. The right hon. Lady said that this amendment would sort the problem today, but it would not. It would do nothing today, or indeed for a considerable number of months. Therefore, there is an issue about what we do today—what we as a Government do, and what we as the creative industries and everybody working together do, to ensure that we protect copyright under the existing law as it is today.

The Minister keeps saying that we have existing copyright laws that are there to protect the creative industries and our artists, but practically our whole creative heritage is being scraped. There are probably songs in the top 40 that have been totally designed by AI, and there will be books in the top 30 or 40 bestsellers that will be based on AI—probably fully AI. This is happening right now. Surely artists and creators should know when their works are being used. That is why Lords amendment 49B is so important for transparency.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are works out there that have been created with the use of AI. As I have said several times, I have never thought that the creative industries are in any sense luddite; I have always thought that they are at the forefront of innovation in so many areas—at the Select Committee yesterday I referred to Fra Angelico. This is true of every creative industry: they have to innovate in order to succeed. A video games company would say that it is using AI all the time, not necessarily to save money but to improve the product and be at the cutting edge of what they are doing. Even Björn from ABBA has said that he has been using AI because it enhances his work.

One area that is in our consultation but is yet to be addressed by anybody in any of the debates I have heard in this House or the other place is this: what we do about the copyright status of works that are solely or largely created by AI, because it is a moot point what we should do about it under existing law? My point is simply that we need to address all these issues in the round rather than piecemeal, and I will come on to that in more substance in a moment.

The Minister is being very generous with his time. Central to what he is saying is transparency. Does he agree that enforceable transparency obligations would reduce legal uncertainty, deter infringement by increasing the legal risk to AI developers, and enable faster redress by allowing the courts to establish precedent where copyright is breached?

Yes. I do not think that people should breach copyright law. I have said that in several debates, and it is the settled view of the Government. We believe that people should not breach copyright law—they should not break the law. Some of the issues my hon. Friend raises have been or are being tested in the courts, and they will be contested more in the courts in future months.

A point I made right at the beginning, when we introduced the consultation, was that there is a fair use system in the United States of America, while we have our system in the UK, and then there is a slightly different system in the EU, which has largely relied on the Napoleonic code understanding of what an author is and what a work is. All those systems are slightly different and have been implemented in different countries in different ways, and they may lead to different conclusions in individual court cases.

That is why we have wanted to look at every single element of this issue, from transparency to technical data, access to high-quality data, issues of enforcement and personality rights. There are a whole series of issues, many of which are yet to be addressed in debates in either Chamber. That takes me back to my point that I do not think this is the Bill in which to do this piece of work, and I do not think that the amendment we are debating will secure what people hope from it.

The Minister mentioned the consultation. Could he confirm that the Government no longer consider an opt-out model to be their preferred approach to copyright and AI, and if so, what alternative approach is now being actively pursued or developed with the sector?

I will say two things. First, we have always said that we were consulting on a package, and part of that package was a technical solution so that rights holders would be able to protect their rights better, in a way that—

Will the Minister give way?

I will in a moment, but I am still answering the intervention. I had two points to make, and I will now probably forget the second one.

As I was saying, it was always going to be a package of measures, and we always said that we would not introduce that package unless we were secure in the belief that we could deliver for the creative industries a technical solution that made it simpler for them to enforce their rights and seek remuneration and that would lead to more licensing. That is a whole package.

When we last debated this, I said two things: first, that we are open-minded about where we are in relation to the consultation, and secondly—perhaps just as importantly—that our amendment 16 would require us to undertake an economic impact assessment of all the different options included in the consultation. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question. Somebody else wanted to ask another question.

I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and then I will probably go over to my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton).

The other week, an Observer article reported that a source close to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology said that

“proposals to introduce an opt-out system of copyright rules was no longer his preferred option but one of several being given consideration.”

That is a very welcome change of heart, potentially, but it does not mean anything unless Ministers are prepared to repeat it in Parliament. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that that is an accurate representation of the Government’s position?

I am afraid that I will repeat what I just said. First, in the consultation we introduced a package of measures and it hinged on the issue of whether we can deliver not only for AI companies but for the creative industries, to protect their rights more effectively than they presently can. Secondly, as I think I have now said twice at the Dispatch Box, we are open-minded about the responses to the consultation. We have had 11,500 responses to the consultation and we are making our way through all that. A lot of different issues have been addressed.

The issue of the economic impact assessment is a serious one. It is one thing to say that the AI sector in the UK, which is the third largest in the world, is worth x billion pounds to the UK economy, and that the creative industries are worth £124 billion—that is a number that a lot of people have used—to the economy. It is quite a different matter to draw up a proper economic impact assessment on the basis of the various different options.

Will the Minister give way?

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is in a queue. It is quite a long queue, and it seems to be getting longer.

I thank the Minister for—

No, no. I think my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) is next.

On the point of finding a solution in the round, if no credible technical solution is in sight, will the Minister confirm what non-technical legislative or regulatory measures the Government are considering to protect rights holders in the interim?

That is precisely why we need to do this in the round, rather than just piecemeal. I understand the attraction of what is on the amendment paper today, but I do not think it would deliver the answer that the people need now to the issues that the creative industries are facing now. In another debate we referred to the issue—

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Hang on! Madam Deputy Speaker, we will have to set up a queuing system.

The Minister is very popular.

I am not sure that it is popularity, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The important point is that we need to look at this in the round, rather than piecemeal. I do not think that what is on the amendment paper today would deliver anything now. Indeed, it does not purport to; it instead purports to give something in six, nine or 12 months’ time, or sometime in the future.

We can assure the Minister that he remains popular, as well as generous with his time. He mentioned the Government consultation. It has caused deep and sustained anxiety across the sector. When can we expect a substantive response to the consultation?

I wish I could give my hon. Friend a timeline. The main thing I want to say about the timeline, as somebody who I think all hon. Members know cares passionately not just about the anxiety that has been created in this sphere because of the consultation but about the anxiety for many creative people about their future careers, is that I get that anxiety—100%. That is the bigger point.

Frankly, I would like to stop doing the Data Bill and start going out and engaging with the Minister for AI and Digital Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), to have as many sessions with creative industries and different parts of the sector and with the AI companies—in particular UK-based AI companies—to work out how we can get to proper solutions to all of this. However, until I get the Data Bill out of the way, I will struggle to do that.

On another point, I think of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley as a musician, because she is still a member of the Musicians’ Union. There is a really important part here for the different sectors within the creative industries. Word, image, music and sound will all probably need different technical solutions. That is the kind of nitty-gritty that we need to get into, which we can only really do when we consider the whole issue in the round, rather than just one specific aspect of it. Now, I think Margate calls.

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being extremely generous with his time.

The Minister is talking about the possibility that the amendments put forward would not do anything today, but there is an urgency in the creative industries because the stuff that they create is being scraped now. Will he prioritise transparency by committing at the Dispatch Box to introducing enforceable obligations, if not through a statutory instrument then at least through a clear public commitment, so that transparency will be central to the Government’s approach to AI and copyright?

First, I completely get the urgency of this. In many ways, I wish we had been addressing this two or three years ago, because we are some way behind other countries in relation to this. Secondly, we will prioritise the issue of transparency in all the work we do as we go forward. I have said that from the very beginning. Transparency is essential to the issue of licensing; licensing is essential to the question of remuneration; and remuneration is essential to the process of AI being high- quality, effective and able to be deployed in the UK. All these things have to be addressed in the round and together, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that without transparency, it is worth nothing.

The AI Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North—is chuntering in my left ear, which is helpful because she makes the point that this was the very first thing we discussed when came into office. With both of us in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, we discussed how we could get to a resolute piece of legislation that enabled greater licensing, greater deployment of artificial intelligence in the UK, in particular UK companies, and greater transparency. So I completely agree on that—

I will give way, but I have the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) waiting.

Again, my hon. Friend is extremely generous with his time. Will he therefore consider interim measures or guidance that would deliver similar outcomes while legislative options are being explored? That is what the creative industries are looking for.

I do not know what interim measures would look like. All three of us on the team, including the Secretary of State, have often said that we are open- minded about anybody coming through the door with a good solution. We are in the business of good ideas, and if anybody has any good ideas, we are happy to look at them, but I honestly cannot make the guarantee that my hon. Friend asks for because I do not know what interim measures that were not legislative would look like. It is not our intention—I would urge people to abide by this—to legislate piecemeal in this Bill, which is not about artificial intelligence and copyright.

Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry he has been waiting so long.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous, although I might suggest that he works on his queuing system a little bit.

I understand that the timetable issue is a difficult one, and most things seem to be arriving in the spring with this Government, but could we talk about the format? Are we going to have the consultation, then a White Paper and then a Bill? Is that what it is going to look like? Will that perhaps be in the next King’s Speech?

If I was unable to suggest what interim measures would look like, I am not sure I will be able to please the hon. Gentleman by suggesting what will be in the next King’s Speech. I do not even know when the next King’s Speech will be. As the Minister for the creative industries and for data, I want, along with my colleagues in Government, to be able to get on with the business of trying to get together the working parties I have referred to. I want to get people from the AI companies and the creative industries sitting around the same table to work out what a proportionate and effective system of transparency would look like and what the technical solutions might be. Other countries have struggled with drawing this up; the EU is struggling with it at the moment.

That is the next stage. At the same time, we are considering what our response to the consultation should be. We have heard what many people in this House and in the House of Lords have said on this issue, and of course we will bear all that in mind. We are keeping an open mind in relation to that. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date for when we will publish that consultation, but we are working on it as fast as we possibly can.

My hon. Friend told our Select Committee yesterday that it is not for us to give away the labour of other people to third parties for free. Given that the Government have now said they are open-minded, and if open-minded means there is no technical solution, is the Minister open-minded to the idea of legislative solutions to protect copyright and enhance it for all our great creatives? It is not just ABBA’s Björn; it is people in Rochdale and low-paid creatives across the whole north-west and country.

One of the special and unique aspects of the creative industries as a sector, which has grown faster than the rest of the UK economy and for whom we hope to lay out our plan in the next few weeks in the creative industries industrial strategy, is that they exist in nearly every part of our land. Often, the jobs are not well remunerated, and we want to change that. That is a key part of what we seek to do. We also want to ensure that more people can come into the creative industries and realise their ambitions in those areas, and they will not be able to do that if they are not remunerated. That is why I have made the point from the beginning that we want to get to a technical solution, which is not far distant. It is a possibility—I would not deride it. It does not exist at the moment, but there are those who want to work on it. Frankly, somebody might earn a decent penny if they were to come up with a solution so that all rights holders would be able easily, simply and without great expense to protect their rights across all AI platforms deployed in the UK.

Oh my Lord—I am almost as keen to get on to the next bit of my speech as I am to get the data Bill through to Royal Assent, but I probably ought to give way to the right hon. Lady and then I will come back to my hon. Friend.

I am so grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I get the sense that he is perhaps needing to go long, and that might be why he is taking so many interventions—I am happy to assist him in that process. I want to give him an opportunity. I know him well enough and know how much he values this place, but I have been slightly concerned by his comments throughout that he is keen to get on with it. Would he like to put on the record that he is first and foremost a parliamentarian and that being in this place is the bit of the job that he values most?

Well, the right hon. Lady was at my 60th birthday—I know it is difficult to believe.

“A long time ago!” says the rather ungenerous Member sitting at the back.

Honestly, I have not been asked to go long. I am simply, because I do believe in parliamentary scrutiny, trying to answer all the questions and engage in a proper debate. I know that colleagues want to press me on a series of issues. There are some issues coming up that they might want to press me on that are completely different from this, and I am happy to be pressed, including by the right hon. Lady, as many times as she wants. But I do not think there was a question in her point. She thought she was trying to help me go long, but I am trying to go slightly shorter.

To help the Minister for a moment, because colleagues are looking bewildered: I do not know who was or was not invited to the Minister’s 60th birthday party, in case they are feeling a little left out.

I know it is out of order to say that an hon. Member is not telling the truth, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were there! [Laughter.] And I accept your apology.

The hon. Gentleman has been generous with his time today and in the process to date, and I thank him for that. I understand the Government have long maintained that this Bill is not the right place for these amendments. Given the Government’s anticipated removal of the Lords amendments and the use of financial privilege, what definitive action will the Minister take to address the ongoing serious concerns of our world-leading creative industries, particularly on copyright and transparency? What does he advise those of us seeking stronger commitments to do next? Would he point to any specific timeline, mechanism or legislative tool that will be used to offer the certainty that the sector is crying out for?

Notwithstanding the hilarity, this is obviously a very important matter to a large number of people. For many people in the creative industry, it feels like a kind of apocalyptic moment—they think that their careers are disappearing in front of their faces. I fully recognise that.

The moment that the Bill is out of the way, I and the two Departments I sit in—the Departments for Culture, Media and Sport and for Science, Innovation and Technology—would like to get people back in to work on two working parties. One would work on transparency and precisely what it looks like in granular detail—very high-level stuff does not really meet the moment. The second would work on technical standards and solutions that might deliver greater access to data for the AI companies, and on the ability for the creative industries to protect their works.

I do have some sympathy with Lords amendment 49B. There is one element that I would like to explore, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). It is one thing for Getty Images, for example, to go to court and protect its rights under the existing law, because it has deep pockets and can engage lawyers. It is quite a different matter for individual artists, who may want to promote their work by putting it on the internet and do not want it to disappear from the internet, but also do not want it to be scraped and turned into another version of their work created by AI.

I will in a second. Then I probably ought to move on to the next subject, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Will the Minister give way?

Oh dear.

I take very seriously the point that this is not just about people with deep pockets; it is also about individual artists. We want to ensure that they are protected. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Of course, I would like to be able to move faster, but as the hon. Gentleman said to me last week in Committee and in various different places, this is not an easy knot to untie. It will require a great deal of goodwill from a large number of people to secure a settled outcome that works for everybody. I still believe that there could be a win-win situation, but that will happen only if we can gather everybody around the same table in order to deliver it. I am perfectly happy to provide leadership, and to be punched in the nose for providing that leadership if people think that I have got it wrong, but I do not think that is the problem at this particular moment.

Let me give the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) one reason why I think Lords amendment 49B does not really work. Yes, we all agree that we should introduce transparency measures—although it is difficult to work out precisely how they would be proportionate and effective and work equally for big and small companies—but there is no point in having transparency measures unless we have an enforcement measure. An element of the proposed new clause refers to enforcement, but it basically asks the Secretary of State to draw up that enforcement. One would not expect to be able to do that in any other area without a full Bill devoted solely to that purpose. I wish that I could move faster, but I do not want to move faster than is required to secure an outcome.

I will take only one more intervention, I am afraid, because I have taken so many. I probably ought to give way to the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way, which has made this a real debate. I commend him for his determination to bring together the tech sector and creatives to develop a solution—I know that many creatives are technical, and many technical people are creative. May I urge the Minister to ensure that he works with a wide range of tech companies? As I have said to him, I do not believe that large tech platforms have the right incentives to develop an appropriate tech solution to this, and I urge him to be transparent about how he engages with them.

Finally, the tech platforms refused to appear at a joint sitting of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, but it is through transparency that we can ensure competition to identify the best technical solution.

Yes, I completely agree. My hon. Friend makes the good point that in the UK, many of the creative industries—roughly 40%—are tech. They are fast-growing, and part of what we want to incentivise. She makes the good point that we need to talk to lots of different kinds of artificial intelligence companies, just as we need to talk to lots of different kinds of creative industries. All those points are well made, and what she refers to is precisely the work that I and the team will want to take forward as soon as we can.

This will be my last intervention for now. Will the Minister make it his policy to include representatives of the creative industries on the technical committees that are working on AI and copyright reform? We arrived at this point because there is a sense that one Department speaks to some people, and another Department speaks to others, whereas there are implications for both sectors. We should have both sectors in the room, talking about each other with the Minister and his Department.

I completely agree with everything my hon. Friend said, and I can give that guarantee. Interestingly, when we started this process after the general election, the first consultation meetings that the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), and I had were with the creative industries in one room and the AI companies in another. Perhaps it would have been better to mix them up in the way my hon. Friend has suggested, and that is precisely the job of work that I want to get on with.

We are determined that wherever we can, we will take creative industries with us, and we will be transparent about the work that we do. I want to lay to rest the idea that there are two Departments at war with one another. That simply is not the case. The two Departments are trying to work together to achieve good outcomes for everybody.

The Minister is being unbelievably generous in taking interventions, but before he moves on, I wanted to say that it is really important to have those involved in AI and in the creative industries in the same room at the same time. He must not forget that the reason the creative industries are in such a state of panic and despair about this is because a hare was set running a few months ago by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, when it published an AI strategy that said that the copyright opt-out was a way to grow the AI industry. The Government then published their consultation, in which they indicated that the opt-out was their preferred mechanism, despite the fact that the document also mentioned prioritising transparency. I understand that, but the Minister must understand that panic has set in. Words matter; what we say matters. He needs to do everything that he can to bring this issue to a close.

As the hon. Lady knows, I am sympathetic to the direction of travel that she is trying to take me in. Some people will think that I am splitting hairs, and that is not my intention, but I have been keen to avoid the term “opt-out”. As I said, we have brought forward a package of measures. They were reliant on our being able to deliver greater control, through technical measures, for the creative industries and others who had rights to protect. That is why we referred to “rights reservation”, rather than “opt-out”. I take her point, and I am sure that we will be debating it for some considerable time. She is a Select Committee Chair, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah). I should have said earlier that when I was Chair of the Committee of Privileges, we produced a report, which has yet to be implemented or even discussed in the House, about how we could ensure that witnesses appeared before Parliament when Select Committee Chairs wanted them to.

If it is all right with the rest of the House, I will move on to further subjects. The issues around scientific research—I can never work out where the emphasis lies when I say the word “research”—are embodied in Lords amendment 43B. Some people have suggested that the Bill will somehow create a wild west for research, but that is simply not true. The Bill does not change the threshold for what constitutes scientific research; we are sticking with what has been and is a fair, clear and proportionate measure, using the “reasonableness test” that is common in other legislation and well known by the courts.

As Lord Vallance said in the House of Lords earlier this week, this amendment would go against the good work done by the previous Government on avoiding unnecessary red tape for researchers. We have a world-class research sector in the UK. We want to empower it, not tie it up in red tape. We believe that documents such as the Frascati manual, which are useful and interesting in other settings, are not designed to contain legally binding requirements, so the amendment is misplaced.

If the amendment were carried forward, researchers would need to be able to demonstrate their work’s creativity to a legal standard. If someone’s work is aimed at testing or reproducing another researcher’s results, is it truly creative? That is a legitimate question, but it takes on a whole new meaning, and brings a whole new layer of bureaucracy, when enforced to a new legal standard, as the Bill insists, backed up by the potential for huge regulatory fines.

Similar issues arise in relation to requirements for research to be “systematic” and “ethical”. Those words are not necessarily well known in the courts when it comes to this legislation. As Lord Winston argued powerfully on Monday, if the amendment had been law 50 years ago, we may never have had in vitro fertilisation and the benefits spinning off from that, including valuable cancer research. Those are the issues caused by putting such a test in a legally binding setting that it was never designed for.

On the point that Lord Winston made in the other place, will the Minister explain how setting a test for scientific research, so that data could be reused, would have prevented in vitro fertilisation?

Lord Winston’s point is that by introducing a requirement that research be systematic, ethical and creative, we are creating a whole new idea of what constitutes research. When he wanted to start his IVF work, it was generally thought that it would be unethical to explore that territory. Today, we would consider that view to be misplaced. We believe that the task of deciding what counts as scientific research is best approached by drawing on guidance and the opinion of experts. That is what the reasonableness test allows. It is a concept that is well understood by the courts. While I sympathise with the intention, expressed in the other place, of guarding against misuse, and while I understand the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West and I have discussed on several occasions, the Government believe that the amendment is unnecessary as the Bill already contains sufficient and, I would argue, considerable safeguards.

A controller who wishes to change the purpose of data processing to scientific research must first ensure that they comply with clause 71’s rules on purpose limitation. Scientific research is not listed as grounds for exemption where data was collected on the basis of consent. Secondly, the controller would have to ensure that they passed a “reasonableness” test; thirdly, they would have to ensure that they had lawful basis; fourthly, they would have to ensure that they met the requirements of the safeguards in clause 86; and fifthly, they would have to ensure that the new processing was fair and complied with the wider data protection principles in UK GDPR. That is a very substantial set of safeguards. The Government cannot see how the Lords amendment would add value, on top of all those requirements against misuse, but it would have an effect on genuine researchers, as I have set out, burdening them with red tape and uncertainty and potentially excluding important research.

Will the Minister give way?

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not give way again. I will sum up at the end of the debate, so if she wants to raise issues again, I will take interventions then. [Interruption.] I think you would like me to get a move on, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I turn finally to the issue of sex and gender, particularly in the context of the measures on digital verification services. I have tabled amendments to remove the measure that was voted for in the House of Lords on Monday, for reasons that Lord Vallance and I have noted in previous debates. For clarity, the data accuracy principle requires personal data to be accurate and not misleading for the purpose for which it is being used. That safeguard should ensure that personal data shared by public authorities with digital verification services for the purposes of verifying a particular attribute appropriately confirms the specific attribute in question. Public authorities and digital verification service providers are legally required to comply with that principle at different stages of the digital verification process. As I said last week, although it is very unlikely that digital verification services will be used in the kind of cases raised by Opposition Members, the provisions mean that if an organisation requests verification of a person’s sex at birth, the public authority must not share data that records gender more widely for the purpose of that check. Likewise, digital verification service providers must not rely on data that records gender more widely as part of the verification process in that scenario.

This Government recognise that there are instances where sex and gender data appear in the same field in public authority data sets. Existing legislation requires personal data to be accurate for the purpose for which it is being used, which means that personal data processed as part of digital verification checks must reflect the specific requirements of that check. I assure the House that if the Government were to identify an instance in which a public authority was sharing with digital verification services gender data that was mislabelled as biological sex data, we would respond appropriately.

To reiterate, this Government consider the issue of data accuracy to be of importance, and accept the Supreme Court ruling. That judgment and its effects must be worked through holistically, with sensitivity and in line with the law. The Government are already undertaking extensive work on data standards and data accuracy that will consider upcoming updated guidance from the equalities regulator. I do not think it would be appropriate to legislate in the way proposed without having taken those steps, particularly given the sensitive nature of this matter and the potential impact on people’s privacy and human rights.

I finish by noting your opinion, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Lords amendments 49B, 52B and 52C engage the financial privilege of this House, which the Government do not believe it is appropriate for this House to waive. I am sure that the other place will reflect on that carefully during its further consideration of the Bill. I am grateful to all those Members who intervened, and I hope that I have not managed to cut off anybody before their prime.

That was a substantial opening speech.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. He is entirely correct to say that the House took an urgent question earlier today on the provisions of the ministerial code. Those provisions make clear that when the House of Commons is sitting, major Government announcements should be made to the House first. That point has been made repeatedly from the Chair, including on multiple recent occasions. Ministers are accountable to this House, and should make every effort to inform this House of policy developments via statements wherever it is possible to do so. While I have been in the Chair, I have had no warning that a statement is due today. The Government and, no doubt, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard both the point of order and my response, and I trust they will act accordingly and with some urgency.

I call the shadow Minister.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak on Lords amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill. Over the course of debating the Bill, it has become customary to thank those in the other place for the work they have done, particularly Baroness Owen for her work on deepfakes and others who have campaigned boldly in that area.

I will begin by speaking to Lords amendment 49B. We have been clear that supporting the creative and AI sectors is not a zero-sum game; we need to support both sectors. Through their ham-fisted consultation on copyright and AI, the Government have raised great concern throughout the creative sector, and the resulting attempts to amend this Bill have been in response to the mess they have created. In Committee and on Report, we set out a series of amendments that focused on the outcome—not the process—for a solution in this area. Those amendments focused on ensuring that the position in law of copyright in this area was clear, on the need for proportionate and effective transparency, on removing barriers to start-ups, and on facilitating technological solutions via digital watermarking.

In one of the many interventions on the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) mentioned the importance of implementing digital watermarking. He referred to it as a response to deepfakes, but it also has relevance to technical solutions, and it strikes me as quite odd that the Minister went on to cover broadly the same topics in his opening remarks, despite pointing out to my right hon. Friend that those topics were not relevant to the ongoing debate. That indicates how confused the treatment of this area in the Bill has become, and the need for clarity.

I pay tribute to Viscount Camrose, Lord Parkinson, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), Baroness Kidron, and others in this House and in the other place, for their work on amendments to reach a resolution in this area. We had sympathy with earlier versions of those amendments, but also concerns about their workability and prescriptiveness. We have worked with Baroness Kidron to get to a position that we can now support; we believe that solutions need to incorporate the principles of transparency and proportionality. The amendment is not a perfect solution, but it is more reasonable than doing nothing.

I find it astounding that the main criticism that the Minister has made of Lords amendment 49B is that it has a run-in period prior to implementation and that people are calling for things to happen now. That is an odd way of approaching legislating. As the Opposition, we are working with other parties, among others, to try to find a solution to get the Minister out of a hole. I hope that Members across the House support the amendment.

Moving on to digital verification services, I welcome the Lords’ disagreement with amendments 32 and 52, and support their amendments 32B, 32C, 52B and 52C on sex data accuracy, which received the support of Members in the other place. As my noble Friend Viscount Camrose said in his speech, it was necessary to re-table amended versions of the clauses on data accuracy previously secured in the other place because our new clause 21 was not in scope for debate in the Lords. The Lords amendments are technical and complex, so if you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak briefly to new clause 21 to explain for the benefit of Members how things have evolved over time.

Our new clause 21 would have compelled public authorities to correct the datasets they hold in relation to sex and to collect data on the protected characteristic of sex in accordance with the legal definition set out in the Supreme Court’s judgment: biological sex. It would also have allowed public authorities to collect data on acquired sex as recorded on a gender recognition certificate where that is relevant and lawful. It would have imposed no new obligations on the correction of data held by public authorities—the obligation already exists under article 5(1)(d) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation—but would simply have put in place a timescale for correcting data on sex. We know from the findings of the Sullivan review that that correction is much needed and long overdue.

To address a misconception, new clause 21 was silent on how sex is recorded in physical and digital forms of identity for those holding a gender recognition certificate. That is a sensitive issue for the 8,500 holders of GRCs in the UK, and we hope that much-needed clarity in this area will be given by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in its guidance due to be laid before Parliament next month. It will be up to the Secretary of State to make rules as to how that guidance is implemented in digital verification services. However, that issue, while important, does not affect the clear obligation that already exists in law to record data on sex accurately.

Lords amendments 32C and 32B, and disagreement with amendment 32, would compel the Secretary of State to examine whether the public authorities that will act as data sources for the digital verification services system ascertain sex data reliably in accordance with biological sex and, where lawful and relevant, with sex as recorded on a gender recognition certificate. That would prevent inaccurate sex data from being entrenched and proliferated in the digital verification services system. Lords amendments 52B and 52C, and disagreement with amendment 52, would give the Secretary of State the power to define in a data dictionary sex data as biological sex and, where relevant, sex as recorded on a gender recognition certificate. That could then be applied across the digital verification services system, the register of births and deaths, and other circumstances where public authorities record personal data. The amendments are critical for correcting our compromised datasets on sex and would ensure that poor-quality and inaccurate data does not undermine digital verification services.

To be clear, if our amendments do not make it into the Bill, self-ID will be brought forward through the back door, risking the protections that single-sex spaces offer to everyone. Self-ID is not and never has been the position in UK law. I do not understand why the Government are resisting these measures. Digital verification systems need to be trustworthy to deliver the benefits intended by the Bill. If they are not trustworthy, the system will fail. I therefore commend these vital and much-needed amendments to the House.

Let me join others in expressing my gratitude for the work of many Members, especially in the other place—in particular, Baroness Owen and Baroness Kidron—but also across this House. There has been a great deal of cross-party work, including much constructive discussion on many elements of the Bill with the Minister. Today, though, I will refer specifically to Lords amendment 49B.

I am lucky enough to represent a part of Hertfordshire that is woven into British creativity, from Graham Greene of Berkhamsted, whose masterpiece “Brighton Rock” shaped our cultural consciousness, to Eric Morecambe of Harpenden, whose partnership in Morecambe and Wise brought joy to millions, while the music of the Devines from Berkhamsted gets us up and dancing, and local artists such as Mary Casserley and Andrew Keenleyside paint our daily lives in ways that bring perspective, colour and joy in a way that only artists can achieve. Our landscapes in Ashridge and Aldbury have inspired film-makers from Disney to the producers of the Harry Potter films, and our pubs have been featured in films including “Bridget Jones”.

Today, this creative legacy faces an unprecedented threat. The current situation is more than just alarming; it is threatening the essence of our national identity and our creative economy. We hear concerns about resources for protecting our creative sector, but those arguments miss a crucial point: our creative industries, combined, contribute £126 billion to our economy, employ 2.4 million people, and are growing significantly faster than the wider economy. The question is not whether we can afford to protect these industries, but whether we can afford not to. When we invest in enforcing copyright protections, we are also investing in safeguarding one of Britain’s greatest economic assets and our competitive advantage on the world stage.

The transparency provisions in Lords amendment 49B are essential and proportionate. They apply proportionately to businesses of different sizes, while ensuring that our creative powerhouse can continue to thrive and, indeed, work hand in hand with technology. True leadership in AI means building on respect for creativity, not exploitation. Let me make it clear that this is not about resisting technology, but about recognising value and safeguarding innovation—and that brings me back home to Berkhamsted.

In the heart of my constituency sits the British Film Institute National Archive, one of the largest and more significant film collections in the world, comprising over 275,000 titles and 20,000 silent films dating back to 1894. It is a living memory of our national story, told on screen. Would we allow anyone to walk into the BFI and take whatever they liked? Would we let them scan, copy and republish those works without permission or compensation? Of course not. So I ask the Minister, why would we allow the same thing to happen in the digital world?

This is a defining moment. We can build an AI-powered future that respects and rewards creativity, or we can allow short-term interests to strip-mine the work of generations. The question before us today is simple: will we stand for a future when technology and creativity flourish together, or will we allow the foundations of our cultural life and economic prosperity to be hollowed out for short-term gain? I urge the Government to stand up for our creators, stand up for transparency, and stand up for the principle that, in the age of AI, human creativity still matters.

I rise to speak to Lords amendment 43B, which deals with the safeguarding of scientific research and ensuring that the exemptions in the Bill are used for the purposes of such research alone.

On Second Reading, the Minister was unable to address the points that I raised; he ran out of time because of the length of the debate on AI and copyright, and I rather feel that the same has happened today. In the meantime, however, he wrote to me extensively to address my concerns. Although I do not think all of them were fully addressed, I was convinced that the Minister and, indeed, the Government did not intend this measure to widen the circumstances in which data could be reused for scientific research without consent. I am thinking of circumstances in which data would be reused for the training of AI models which were in themselves not contributing to new, creative scientific research. I believe—let me emphasise this—that all scientific research is creative, and that even if it is simply reproducing existing findings, it is creating confidence in the stock of scientific knowledge. I understand that the Minister does not intend to create a wild west, and I hope that he can confirm specifically that it is not the policy, intention or effect of the provisions to enable the reuse of personal data for AI.

The Minister makes a hand signal, but I am of the view that hand signals are not reflected in Hansard. The Minister has far greater knowledge of proceedings in this House than I do, so I suspect he knows that too. If he would like to intervene on me, I would be very happy for him to do so.

I am being very badly behaved. I did not want to take up more time, but I will respond at the end. I think my hon. Friend will be happy.

I thank the Minister for his inadvertent intervention, and I look forward to my future happiness. Given his reassurances, I think the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee can work with the Government to ensure that the Bill enables scientific research through the use of the fantastic datasets that the UK is proud to have, without exposing the public to the reuse of their data for the purposes of training AI models or for other commercial purposes that are not within the remit of scientific research. I will be pleased to accept the Minister’s reassurances, and on that basis I do not wish to engage in further ping-pong between the Houses.

In reference to the earlier exchange, it seems that if you remember the Minister’s 60th birthday, you were not really there—but I really was not there. [Interruption.] Did I? I knew there must have been some very good reason. Why I was not there is now in Hansard.

There is profound disappointment within the creative sector today. Everyone in the sector really believed and hoped that the Minister would appear today with something in his back pocket that he would be able to bring out to give reassurance to the many artists and creators right across the country who are extremely anxious and concerned about the direction of the debate and conversations about the use of their work. They are really concerned that some of their precious work, into which they have put so much time, effort, blood, sweat and tears, will be scraped up, trawled through by a bot and ingested by one of the large American tech companies, and then reappear as some minor mirror of itself.

No one has been satisfied with what has been said today, and the Minister has one last chance. I really hope that he can give something to the creative industries, or at least give them some sort of hope as we go forward into the next few months and years, because they are going into the next few months and years unprotected. They will have nothing that they can rely on, other than what is in the amendments, and I know for a fact that the Minister will ensure that they are voted down.

Today has been a curious day, too, because financial privilege has been invoked for a particular amendment. In my almost quarter of a century in this House, I have never seen that before. I think I know why it has been done: it is to ensure that the House of Lords does not get another opportunity to bring this measure back. I say to the Minister and the Secretary of State, who is shaking his head, that the Lords are already designing it. After it goes back to the House of Lords, it will come back once again. I am sure it does not invoke any financial privilege, but it is ultimately disappointing that the Lords will not be able to present the same motion again, which was their intention. That amendment has received overwhelming support from everybody across the creative sector, and I had really hoped that the Government would support it today.

The only reason we are here is the efforts of the Members of the House of Lords. I usually do not pay them much of a tribute or respect what they do, but they have played a blinder. In particular, Beeban Kidron—Baroness Kidron—has stuck to this agenda to ensure that these Lords amendments have been reinserted into the Bill. They have had to do it because the Government have not done so. The Government have done nothing to ensure that our creative sector is protected.

The Government say that there should be more time for this, but we do not have time. We have to act now to protect the livelihoods of 2.4 million creators in the UK against exploitation by some of the richest companies in the world. As I have said countless times throughout this Bill’s passage, if we continue at this rate there will soon be nothing left to protect. The thing is that the Government should have acted earlier. They should have taken steps to protect creators’ rights as a matter of urgency. Instead, it has been left to others to scramble to find a way to ensure that we had these vital Lords amendments to a Bill that, as the Minister has said on several occasions, was not designed for them.

The Government’s motions will in effect set a timeline of several years before any resolution is reached on copyright transparency. I listened very carefully, as I always do, to what the Minister had to say about transparency, but I still do not understand why this cannot be done immediately. All the Government have to do is tell inventors, creators and copyright holders that their work is going to be used or ingested by one of the web crawlers that are in operation. That is all they would have to do, and it could be done very easily. There is no great technical problem in introducing transparency as a priority, and it could possibly happen within a few weeks.

The hon. Member is making some important points. As Lord Brennan said recently, this Bill is an opportunity to regulate AI:

“This Bill, this bus, is an opportunity that the Government should be getting on rather than waiting for another bus several years down the road”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1932.]

This bus is leaving now, along with the opportunity to protect our creative rights. Does the hon. Member agree with me and share my concern that the Government are going to miss the bus?

I would always agree with the noble Lord Brennan. As somebody who played with him for many years in a parliamentary rock band, I think we all miss him in this House. He was spot-on when he said that: we have to act now.

Even if the Government want to change copyright law—I still do not know whether that is their intention, and the creative sector strongly opposes that—it will be years before creators have the slightest hope of protecting their work against creative theft. This sector has seen its work taken, used and exploited by tech companies. They came into this process hoping that they would finally get some protection, but instead of being heard, their hopes have been set aside again.

Lords amendment 49B does exactly what the sector has been calling for over many years. The fact that it has been tabled is a credit to the sustained campaign from our artists in the creative sector, who have organised themselves so efficiently and put such a compelling case. They have put so compelling and knowledgeable a case that our constituents have started to understand the complexities of copyright law, and they now realise its value in ensuring that the works of the artists they love, respect and like to listen to are recognised and that they will be compensated for their wonderful works. Despite what the Government say, merely enforcing the existing law will not be burdensome for AI firms, particularly as Lords amendment 49B allows the transparency requirements to be modified for small AI developers and for all UK-registered developers so that they are proportionate. This will prevent start-ups from being burdened with overly onerous regulation. In fact, all this proposal does is put UK start-ups on a level playing field with US tech giants that gain an unfair competitive advantage by ignoring copyright law. Transparency will make the legal risk of copyright infringement too great for AI firms to break the law. It will allow courts to hear cases quickly, establish precedent and kill any argument that there is uncertainty in UK law. If we can see what has been stolen, it is easier to stop its being stolen and to get redress when it continues to be stolen.

It is now up to the Government to fix this. If they are serious about protecting our creative industries—they should be, and I accept that that is what they intend to do—then they cannot stop at working groups and economic impact assessments. That is the bare minimum; it is not, by any measure, enough.

If this is the last opportunity we have to put the case, it is a black day for our creative sectors. They had hoped that this would be the day the Government appeared with something that satisfied at least some of their concerns. They deserve to have their work protected fairly. They were looking for anything from the Government to see that they were clearly on their side and were prepared to do something. I think we already know exactly what they will decide, but the Government now have a choice: remove Lords amendment 49B and turn their back on the creative industries, or find an actual way to protect our creative sector and make sure that they back it.

I was anticipating more contributions from other Members, but it is a delight to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to follow on from the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). I will not speak at great length, Members will be delighted to hear.

First, I want to refer to the matter of financial privilege, because the hon. Member referred to it just now. It is not the Government who decide whether financial privilege is engaged. It is a simple matter decided on advice from the Clerks to the Chair, which is determined from two motions, from 1671 and 1678. Where there is any financial implication of a Bill, or in this case an amendment that comes from the House of Lords, it is a simple matter as to whether or not the financial privilege of the House of Commons is engaged. Anything that obviously requires a system of enforcement is likely to require expenditure. That is why we would not choose to waive our financial privilege in relation to these amendments today.

A money resolution to the Bill was passed with Second Reading. I looked at it and there is nothing that says there is any financial limit on any measures included in the Bill, so I am a bit confused about why financial privilege has to be invoked on that basis.

It is not the Government who invoke financial privilege. It is the House that does it, via the Speaker’s Chair. I am afraid that that is a debate we will have to have at another point. Much as I love debating motions from 1671 and 1678, I think we might move forward.

The only point I will make to the hon. Gentleman about his contribution on the creative industries—he knows that on many of these issues we completely and utterly agree—is that if there were a simple way of being able to enforce those rights today, I would seize it. If he wants to write to me with a suggestion on what that actually looks like and what we would do today to be able to enforce the rights under the existing law today, then of course I would be happy to look at it.

I also said that I would respond to the point from the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah). The Bill creates no new permission to reuse data for scientific research. It is not the effect of the provisions to provide blanket approval of the reuse of personal data for AI training under the banner of scientific research. I hope that that meets some of her understandable concerns.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that it is completely not in order, but I am going to say it anyway and end on this point. We have discussed some very serious points, but I do just wish that Remember Monday will win the Eurovision song contest on Saturday evening, with their song, “What the Hell Just Happened?” I wish Lauren, Holly-Anne and Charlotte all the best of British.

Question put.

Division off.

Question agreed to.

Clause 67

Meaning of research and statistical purposes

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 43B. —(Chris Bryant.)