Fury as Lords accuse Government of ‘manipulating’ procedure to block AI reform

Peers have accused the Government of “manipulating” or “hiding behind” procedure to block Artificial Intelligence (AI) reform voted for by the House of Lords.

The upper chamber has called for greater protections for artists, musicians and others from AI companies using their copyrighted work without their permission.

On Monday, peers voted by a 147 majority to amend the Data (Use and Access) Bill to add transparency requirements, aiming to ensure copyright holders have to give permission for their work to be used and are able to see what aspects have been taken by who and when.

Ping-pong

However, MPs voted by a majority of 129 on Wednesday to disagree with this change, meaning so-called ping-pong between the two Houses of Parliament is set to continue.

The reason given for rejecting the amendment is it “would involve charges on public funds”.

This is understood to refer to financial privilege, which is the right of the House of Commons to decide public spending and taxes.

The Government has also said it “considering next steps” on addressing copyright issues after its 10-week consultation on the impact of AI, which received more than 11,500 responses, but that the Data Bill is not the right vehicle to implement change on this issue.

Theft

Online safety campaigner Baroness Kidron, whose amendment peers backed, said the Government “did use procedure rather than policy to overturn amendments that could have turbo-charged a lucrative market for AI training data”.

The independent crossbench peer asked: “If theft at this scale was happening in pharma, finance, aerospace or indeed the tech sector, which protects its patents so fiercely, would the Government stand by and suggest the cost of regulation was too great to stop a multibillion-pound industry being plundered?”

Deputy chairman of the Telegraph Group and Conservative peer Lord Black of Brentwood said: “For AI businesses to flourish here, they need access to our world class content, which will only be produced if content creators have effective copyright protection.

“This House recognised that on Monday during the passage of the Data Bill and it’s deeply disappointing to learn that, rather than act decisively to give creators transparency as we voted for, holding AI firms accountable for copyright theft, seeing deals struck and allowing the UK to play that leading role in the global AI supply chain, the Government is manipulating parliamentary procedure arrogantly to dismiss our views.

“Is it really now the Government’s extraordinary position that if it costs money to enforce the law we must just let criminals get away with theft?

“I for one reject that… This house must hold firm.”

Intellectual property

Shadow culture minister Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay said: “This House voted by a majority of nearly 150 to stand up for the rights and the intellectual property of the people working in our creative industries.

“The minister will have heard the great dismay from across the House about the way the creative industries minister in the Commons is hiding behind parliamentary procedure to drag his feet while this theft continues from our creative businesses.

“Does she think this is an acceptable way to treat, not just this House of Parliament, but the creative businesses that contribute more to our economy than the automotive, aerospace, life sciences and oil and gas sectors combined?

“And will she please take this frustration back to her colleagues and urge them to engage more faithfully before the Bill returns to this House on Monday?”

Independent crossbench peer the Earl of Clancarty added: “If the Government feels that our relationship with the American tech companies is so important for the country’s financial stability that it cannot introduce protective legislation for the creative industries, then it needs to be honest and say so.

“Don’t treat the public like fools.”

Responding, Labour frontbencher Baroness Twycross said: “I can’t emphasise enough that all Lords in this House need to respect the primacy of the Commons in relation to financial privilege.

“You may disagree with me on that point, but I think it would be very wrong of this House to reject a principle – it’s not a procedure or a procedural tool, it’s a principle – that the Commons has financial primacy.”

She told peers: “This country fought a civil war over taxes and the primacy of the Commons.

“I don’t think it’s for this House to criticise the Commons for using financial privilege as the reason to reject an amendment.”

The minister added: “As the Government has signalled clearly, we do recognise that transparency and getting this right is a key element required to improve the situation for creators, but we simply don’t believe this Bill is the right vehicle to put those measures into law.

“Baroness Kidron’s amendments were well-intentioned, but they have not taken into account the work that needs to be done before we put measures into statute.

“We want to get this right and for AI to work for everyone.

“Our aim is to provide certainty and to deliver growth for our UK creative and AI sectors through a copyright regime that provides creatives with real control and transparency and helps them license their content while supporting AI developers’ lawful access to high quality material…

“I won’t apologise for the Government not wanting to use a Bill that is currently going through Parliament, rather than making sure we get this right.”