Members of the House of Lords have abandoned attempts to force changes to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which they argued were necessary to protect artists’ intellectual property rights.
Peers had been demanding amendments be added to ensure artists are offered copyright protection. But on Wednesday, they withdrew any further proposed changes and agreed to pass the government’s final version of the bill.
This paves the way for the bill—which aims to change the way data are used and accessed—to gain Royal Assent and become an act of Parliament or law.
The House of Commons, held by the Labour government with a majority, repeatedly rejected peers’ amendments, resulting in four rounds of so-called parliamentary “ping-pong,” where a bill goes back and forth between the lower and upper chambers until both lords and MPs can agree on its wording.
‘Morally and Culturally Indefensible’
Responding to the news, UK Music’s Chief Executive Tom Kiehl said in a statement, “After five Government defeats, on Wednesday the House of Lords decided not to press issue of AI, transparency and copyright further on Data Bill, marking an end to a momentous battle where the needs of our creative community have been valiantly fought for.”Kiehl added that “other opportunities will present themselves to pick up this fight to achieve proper protections for our creators and music businesses.”
During the debate in the upper house, several lords expressed their dissatisfaction with the government’s response to its efforts to change the bill.
Filmmaker and cross-bench peer Baroness Beeban Kidron said the government has “stood in the way of attempts to stop one sector building its products on the labour of another without permission or payment.”
Kidron said: “I am all for inward investment and I am all for new jobs—indeed, I am all in for AI—but, while the government say it is ‘premature’ to give transparency to prevent our work being stolen, they are sacrificing UK businesses to invest our future and our tax receipts in AI, in advance of any economic assessment and without any analysis of to whom the money will go.
‘Enough Is Probably Enough’
In withdrawing his own amendment to the bill, cross-bench peer and composer Lord Michael Berkeley of Knighton told colleagues that “enough is probably enough. I think we’ve made our point.”“I do so hope the government will listen. I trust them to listen and to improve matters as far as the creatives are concerned. We can only do so much here. I believe we have done it. It is up to the government and the other place [the House of Commons] now to listen,” he said.
While generally both houses must agree on the exact wording of a bill in order for it to become law, the upper chamber cannot stop a bill from becoming law due to limits on its powers.
The unelected House of Lords can delay legislation for up to a year if peers oppose it; but the elected House of Commons has the power to reintroduce the bill in the next parliamentary session and pass it without the Lords’ approval.
Commitment to Creative Sector
Last week, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy sought to reassure the creative sector that artists would not be harmed by future legislation and AI.On Wednesday, technology minister Baroness Margaret Jones of Whitchurch reiterated the government’s “absolute commitment to the creative sector and our intention to work with it to help it flourish and grow.”
She said she understood the concerns of those opposed, adding that the bill “does not change, weaken, or block anything in copyright law.”
“Our plans will give copyright holders as much protection as possible via transparency, enforcement, and remuneration,” she told peers.
