Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministerial Statement

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] 2025-05-22

22 May 2025 · 17 other contributors

Opened by The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology Peter Kyle Lab Lab

EconomyCulture, Media & SportScience & Technology

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology Peter Kyle raised concerns about data (use and access) bill [lords] 2025-05-22 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.

Key points

  • Peter Kyle moved that the House disagrees with Lords amendment 49D
  • The Data Use and Access Bill aims to use data for economic growth and better public services
  • Kyle expressed regret over the timing of the consultation on copyright and AI issues

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Government Statement

The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology Peter Kyle

Peter Kyle moved that the House disagrees with Lords amendment 49D. He expressed his appreciation for the UK's creative industries while acknowledging their concerns about the future. The Data (Use and Access) Bill aims to harness data for economic growth and improve public services, but was not intended to address AI, intellectual property, or copyright issues. Kyle regretted the timing of the consultation on copyright and AI, which coincided with the Bill's progress through Parliament. He clarified that opting out is now abandoned and emphasised the need for a comprehensive solution rather than addressing only one part of the issue.

Other contributors (17)
  • Samantha Niblett Lab South Derbyshire

    Question

    Will the Secretary of State meet her and several companies to discuss a potential tech solution?

    Minister reply

    Peter Kyle expressed his gratitude for Samantha Niblett's intervention, shared her passion for finding a workable solution, and reiterated that formalising insights from technology companies is part of their approach.

  • Alison Hume Lab Scarborough and Whitby

    Question

    Will the Secretary of State confirm once and for all that the Government’s preferred opt-out for reserving copyright is now abandoned?

    Minister reply

    Peter Kyle confirmed that opting out was an opportunity to bring both sides together but acknowledged it is no longer viable.

  • Pete Wishart SNP Perth and Kinross-shire

    Question

    Why does the Government not offer anything to creators, given that the Lords amendment seems reasonable?

    Minister reply

    Peter Kyle stated that a better way forward is needed to give creatives protections and opportunities for licensing in the future.

  • James Naish Lab Rushcliffe

    Question

    What reassurances can be given regarding works already scraped by AI models?

    Minister reply

    Peter Kyle acknowledged that content has been subsumed by AI under current law, illustrating the need for a comprehensive approach.

  • Caroline Dinenage Con Gosport

    Question

    Why is the Government not committed to proactively enforcing copyright law?

    Minister reply

    Peter Kyle clarified that existing copyright law is certain but not fit for purpose, and emphasised his commitment to giving certainty through legislation.

  • Polly Billington Lab East Thanet

    Question

    Why are the Government refusing to put notice of backstop powers for transparency in the Bill?

    Minister reply

    Peter Kyle explained that the amendment is not comprehensive enough and does not tackle needs and opportunities of both sectors.

  • James Frith Lab Bury North

    Question

    Will he commit to including powers for transparency in secondary legislation if the voluntary approach fails?

    Minister reply

    Peter Kyle appreciated Mr Frith's tone and engagement, reiterating his commitment to finding a comprehensive solution.

  • Joe Robertson Con Isle of Wight East

    Question

    The Secretary of State talks about delivering certainty but does he not see that the certainty he is giving is to large multinational tech companies which will be able to get away with scraping original content?

    Minister reply

    In response to the hon. Member's intervention, I assure him that the Bill before us does not mention AI or copyright and it aims to address both the opportunities and challenges presented by the AI sector while also protecting the creative industries.

  • Emily Darlington Lab Milton Keynes Central

    Question

    What is the backstop if the voluntary approach does not create the transparency that creators need?

    Minister reply

    The consultation will help to understand where the concerns are and where tech companies can provide their suggested solutions. We aim to come together as two Houses of Parliament and two separate sectors to find a way forward.

  • Bayo Alaba Lab Southend East and Rochford

    Question

    When does the Government intend to bring forward the promised AI and IP Bill? Will transparency obligations be prioritised?

    Minister reply

    We will engage with both sectors, including finding ways of engaging views across the House in the process. The legislative programme is determined by traditions, conventions, and the Leader of the House.

  • Billington

    Question

    Does the Secretary of State have a case for putting backstop powers on the face of this Bill to create confidence?

    Minister reply

    The amendment before us does not include powers of enforcement and would lead to great instability in an area where I am determined to create stability. We need comprehensive legislation that both Houses fully endorse.

  • Sally Jameson Lab/Co-op Doncaster Central

    Question

    Will the Secretary of State commit to chairing a cross-sector working group with AI industries and creative sector?

    Minister reply

    I am now setting up a series of expert working groups to bring together people from both sectors on issues such as transparency, licensing, and technical standards.

  • Catherine Fookes Lab Monmouthshire

    Minister reply

    I am going to make some progress. I will try to give way a bit later.

  • Julian Lewis Con New Forest East

    Question

    Would the Secretary of State like to say a word of praise for the upper House?

    Minister reply

    The Secretary of State acknowledges the work of the upper House and its constructive role in revisiting disagreements on other parts of the Bill.

  • Peter Kyle

    Question

    I acknowledge the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes.

    Minister reply

    Acknowledges previous statements made and commits to resolving contentious issues effectively through collaboration with both sectors.

  • Victoria Collins

    Question

    True leadership in AI means building on respect for creativity, including in the House of Commons, not exploitation. We can build an AI-powered future where technology and human ingenuity flourish together, but only if we start with transparency... I invite all colleagues from all parties to join us today in supporting amendment 49D, to set that direction and to stand up for transparency for our creators and for the principle that, in the age of AI, human creativity still matters.

  • John Whittingdale

    Question

    I have to say that I am slightly surprised that no Labour Back Bencher is willing to speak in support of the Government’s position... On the Order Paper, the Government have said that Lords amendment 49D “engages financial privilege”. The amendment use the word “may”, so it does not contain any requirement on the Government to indulge in financial expenditure. It is a worrying precedent if the Government are going to avoid debate on policy by suggesting that... I understand the Secretary of State’s keenness to attract investment from tech companies.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy