UK Government’s AI Legislation is Defeated in the House of Lords
The new-ish UK government led by Labour Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer faced a defeat in the House of Lords regarding their AI bill. The defeat was specifically about measures to protect copyrighted material from being used to train AI models without permission or compensation. Members of the House of Lords (known as “Peers”) voted 145 to 126 in favor of amendments to the UK Government’s Data (Use and Access) Bill, proposed by film director Beeban Tania Kidron, the Baroness Kidron (a “cross bench peer”) which aim to safeguard the intellectual property of creatives. Lady Kidron said:
There is a role in our economy for AI… and there is an opportunity for growth in the combination of AI and creative industries, but this forced marriage on slave terms is not it.
So there’s that. We need a film director in the Senate, don’t you think? Yes, let’s have one of those, please.
Bill Dies With Amendments
The amendments proposed by Baroness Kidron received cross-party support (what would be called “bi-partisan” in the US, but the UK has more than two political parties represented in Parliament). The amendments include provisions to ensure, among other things, that AI companies comply with UK copyright law, disclose the names and owners of web crawlers doing their dastardly deeds in the dark of the recesses of the Internet, and allow copyright owners to know when and how their work is used. It might even protect users of Microsoft or Google products from having their drafts crawled and scraped for AI training.
This defeat highlights the growing concerns within Parliament about the unregulated use of copyrighted material by major tech firms. Starmer’s Data (Use and Access) Bill was proposed by the UK government to excuse the use of copyrighted material by AI models. However, thanks in part to Lady Kidron it faced significant opposition in the House of Lords, leading to its defeat.
Here’s a summary of why it failed:
Cross-Party Support for Amendments: The amendments proposed by Baroness Kidron received strong support from both Labour and Conservative peers. They argued that the bill needed stronger measures to protect the intellectual property of creatives.
Transparency and Redress: The amendments aimed to improve transparency by requiring AI companies to disclose the names and owners of web crawlers and allowing copyright owners to know when and how their work is used.
Government’s Preferred Option: The government suggested an “opt-out” system for text and data mining, which would allow AI developers to scrape copyrighted content unless rights holders actively opted out. This approach was heavily criticized as it would lead to widespread unauthorized use of intellectual property, or as we might say in Texas, that’s bullshit for starters.
Economic Impact: Supporters of the amendments argued that the bill, in its original form, would transfer wealth from individual creatives and small businesses to big tech companies, undermining the sustainability of the UK’s creative industries. Because just like Google’s products, it was a thinly disguised wealth transfer.
The defeat highlights the growing concerns within Parliament about the unregulated use of copyrighted material by major tech firms and the need for stronger protections for creatives. several prominent artists voiced their opposition to the UK government’s AI bill. Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney were among the most prominent critics. They argued that the government’s proposed changes would allow AI companies to use copyrighted material without proper compensation, which could threaten the livelihoods of artists, especially emerging ones.
Elton John expressed concerns that the bill would enable big tech companies to “ride roughshod over traditional copyright laws,” potentially diluting and threatening young artists’ earnings. As a fellow former member of Long John Baldry’s back up band, I say well done, Reg. Paul McCartney echoed these sentiments, emphasizing that the new laws would allow AI to rip off creators and hinder younger artists who might not have the means to protect their work–and frankly, the older artists don’t either when going up against Google and Microsoft, with backing by Softbank and freaking countries.
Their opposition highlights the broader concerns within the creative community like Ivors Academy and ECSA about the potential impact of AI on artists’ rights and earnings.
Role of the House of Lords
The House of Lords is one of the two houses of the UK Parliament, the other being the House of Commons. It plays a crucial role in the legislative process and functions as a revising chamber. Here are some key aspects of the House of Lords:
Functions of the House of Lords
Scrutiny and Revision of Legislation:
The House of Lords reviews and scrutinizes bills passed by the House of Commons.
It can suggest amendments and revisions to bills, although it cannot ultimately block legislation.
Debate and Deliberation:
The Lords engage in detailed debates on a wide range of issues, contributing their expertise and experience.
These debates can influence public opinion and policy-making.
Committees:
The House of Lords has several committees that investigate specific issues, scrutinize government policies, and produce detailed reports.
Committees play a vital role in examining the impact of proposed legislation and holding the government to account.
Checks and Balances:
The House of Lords acts as a check on the power of the House of Commons and the executive branch of the government.
It ensures that legislation is thoroughly examined and that diverse perspectives are considered.
Composition of the House of Lords
Life Peers: Appointed by the King on the advice of the Prime Minister, these members serve for life but do not pass on their titles.
Bishops: A number of senior bishops from the Church of England have seats in the House of Lords.
Hereditary Peers: A limited number of hereditary peers remain, but most hereditary peerages no longer carry the right to sit in the House of Lords.
Law Lords: Senior judges who used to sit in the House of Lords as the highest court of appeal, a function now transferred to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
Limitations
While the House of Lords can delay legislation and suggest amendments, it does not have the power to prevent the House of Commons from passing laws. Its role is more about providing expertise, revising, and advising rather than blocking legislation.
Now What?
Following the defeat in the House of Lords, the government’s Data (Use and Access) Bill will need to be reconsidered by the UK government. They will have to decide whether to accept the amendments proposed by the Lords or to push back and attempt to pass the bill in its original form.
It’s not entirely unusual for Labour peers to vote against a Labour government, especially on issues where they have strong differing opinions or concerns. The House of Lords operates with a degree of independence of the House of Commons, where I would say it would be highly unusual for the government to lose a vote on something as visible at the AI issue.
The AI bill would no doubt be a “triple whip vote”, a strict instruction issued by a political party to its members usually in the House of Commons (in this case the Labour Party), requiring them to attend a vote and vote according to the party’s official stance to support the Government. It’s the most serious form of voting instruction, indicating that the vote is crucial and that party discipline must be strictly enforced. Despite the sadomasochistic overtones of a “triple whip” familiar as caning to British public school boys, peers in the Lords often vote based on their own judgment and expertise rather than strict party lines. This can lead to situations where Labour peers might oppose government proposals if they believe it is in the best interest of the public or aligns with their principles. Imagine that!
So, while it’s not the norm, it’s also not entirely unexpected for Labour peers to vote against a Labour government when significant issues are at stake like, oh say the destruction of the British creative industries.
Crucially, the government is currently consulting on the issue of text and data mining through the Intellectual Property Office. The IPO is accepting public comments on the AI proposals with a deadline of February 25, 2025. This feedback will likely influence their next steps. Did I say that the IPO is accepting public comments, even from Americans? Hint, hint. Read all about the IPO consultation here.