AI Seoul Summit

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

I hope this is in order, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I note that the Minister for Employment, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) is on the Front Bench, and that she is not standing at the general election. I know she has been very cross with me on occasions over the past few years—she is probably still cross with me now. [Interruption.] As the Minister says, she is only human. On a personal note, as we have both been cancer sufferers—or survivors—and have both had more than one rodeo on that, it is sad that she is leaving. I am sure she will continue to fight for patients with cancer and on many other issues, and I pay tribute to her. It has been a delight to work with her over these years; I hope she will forgive me one day.

The economic opportunities for our country through artificial intelligence are, of course, outstanding. With the right sense of mission and the right Government, we can make the most of this emerging technology to unlock transformative changes in our economy, our NHS and our public services. Let us just think of AI in medicine. It is a personal hope that it might soon be possible to have an AI app that can accurately assess whether a mole on somebody’s back, arm or leg—or the back of their head—is a potential skin cancer, such as melanoma. That could definitely save lives. We could say exactly the same about the diagnosis of brain injury, many other different kinds of cancer and many other parts of medicine There could be no more important issue to tackle, but I fear the Government have fluffed it again. Much as I like the Minister, his statement could have been written by ChatGPT.

I have a series of questions. First, let me ask about the

“shared risk thresholds for frontier AI development and deployment”,

which the Minister says Governments will be developing. How will they be drawn up? What legal force will they have in the UK, particularly if there is to be no legislation, as still seems to be in the mind of the Government?

Secondly, the Secretary of State hails the voluntary agreements from the summit as a success, but does that mean companies developing the most advanced AI are still marking their own homework, despite the potential risks?

Thirdly, the Minister referred several times to “malicious actors”. Which “malicious actors” is he referring to? Does that include state actors? If so, how is that work integrated with the cyber-security strategy for the UK? How will that be integrated with the cyber-security strategy during the general election campaign?

Fourthly, the Government’s own artificial intelligence adviser, Professor Yoshua Bengio, to whom the Minister referred, has said that it is obvious that more regulatory measures will be needed, by which he means regulations or legislation of some kind. Why, therefore, have the Government not even taken the steps that the United States has taken using President Biden’s Executive order?

Next, have the commitments made six months ago at the UK safety summit been kept, or are these voluntary agreements just empty words? Moreover, have the frontier AI companies, which took part in the Bletchley summit, shared their models with the AI Safety Institute before deploying them, as the Prime Minister pledged they would?

Next, the Government press release stated that China participated in person at the AI Seoul summit, so can the Minister just clear up whether it signed the ministerial statement? As the shadow Minister for creative industries, may I ask why there were no representatives of the creative industries at the AI summit? Why none at all, despite the fact that this is a £127 billion industry in the UK, and that many people in the creative industries are very concerned about the possibilities, the threats, the dangers and the risks associated with AI for remuneration of creators?

The code of practice working group, which the Government set up and which was aiming at an entirely voluntary code of conduct, has collapsed, so what is the plan now? The Government originally said that they would still consider legislation, so is that still in their mind?

I love this next phrase of the Minister’s. He said, “We are only just getting started”. Clearly, somebody did not do any editing. What on earth has taken the Government so long? A Labour Government would introduce binding regulation of the most powerful frontier AI companies, requiring them to report before they train models over a capability threshold, to conduct safety testing and evaluation and to maintain strong information security protections. Why have the Government not brought forward any of those measures, despite very strong advice from all of their advisers to do so?

Finally, does the Minister agree that artificial intelligence is there for humanity, and humanity is not there for artificial intelligence?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I share the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman expressed about my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). It was a very sweet thing that he said—the only sweet thing he has said from the Dispatch Box. My hon. Friend has been a great friend to me, giving me advice when I became a new father. Many people do not see the hard work that goes into the pastoral care that happens here, so I am personally very grateful to her. I know that she was just about to leave the Chamber, so I will let her do so. I just wanted to place on record my thanks and gratitude to her.

I am a bit disappointed with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), although I have a lot of time for him. Let me first address the important matter of healthcare. We obviously hugely focus on AI safety; we have taken a world-leading position on AI safety, which is what the Bletchley and the Seoul declarations were all about.

Ultimately, the hon. Member’s final statement about AI being for humanity is absolutely right. We will continue to work at pace to help build trust in AI, because it can be a transformative tool in a number of different spheres—whether it is in the public sector or in health, as the hon. Member quite rightly pointed out. On a personal note, I hope that, as a cancer survivor he has the very best of health for a long time to come.

Earlier this week, the Prime Minister spoke about how AI can help in the way that breast cancer scans are looked at. I often talk about Brainomix, which has been greatly helpful to 37 NHS trusts in the early identification of strokes. That means that three times more people are now living independently than was previously possible. AI can also be used in other critical pathways. Clearly, AI will be hugely important in the field of radiotherapy. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has already recommended that AI technologies are used in the NHS to help with the contouring of CT and MRI scans and to plan radiotherapy treatment and external therapy for patients.

The NHS AI Lab was set up in 2020 to accelerate the development and the deployment of safe, ethical and effective AI in healthcare. It is worth saying that the hon. Member should not underestimate the complexity of this issue .Earlier this year, I visited a start-up called Aival, which the Government helped to fund through Innovate UK. The success of the AI models varies depending on the different machines that are used and how they are calibrated, so independent verification of the AI models, and how they are employed in the health sector specifically, is very important.

In terms of malicious actors, the hon. Member will understand that I cannot go into specific details for obvious reasons, but I assure him, as someone who sits on the defending democracy taskforce, led by the Security Minister, that we have been looking at pace at how to protect our elections. I am confident that we are prepared, having taken a cross-governmental approach, including with our agencies. It is hugely important that we ensure that people can have trust in our democratic process.

The hon. Member is right that these are voluntary agreements. I was surprised by his response, because we said clearly in our response to the White Paper that we will keep the regulator-led approach, which we have invested money in. We have given £10 million to ensure that the regulator increases its capability in a whole sphere of areas. We have also said that we will not be afraid to legislate when the time is right. That is a key difference between what the Opposition talk about and what we are doing. Our plan is working, whereas the Opposition keep talking about legislating but cannot tell us what they would legislate for.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

We just told you. You should have listened.

[Saqib Bhatti]

There is no robust detail. I see that has exercised the hon. Member, who is chuntering from a sedentary position. The Opposition just have no serious plan for this.

The results speak for themselves. Around two weeks ago, we had a number of significant investments and a significant amount of job creation in the UK, with investment from CoreWeave, and almost £2 billion—[Interruption.] Those on the Opposition Front Bench would do well to listen to this. We had £2 billion of investment. Scale AI has put its headquarters in the UK. That shows our world-leading position, which is exactly why we co-hosted the Seoul summit and will support the French when they have their AI action summit. It goes to show the huge difference in our approach. We see safety as an enabler of growth and innovation, and that is exactly what we are doing.

The work goes on with the creative industries. It is hugely important, and we will not shy away from the most difficult challenges that AI presents.

Smartphones and Social Media: Children

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May I first place on the record my enormous commendation to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for bringing forward this debate? These issues are very live in many houses, schools and communities up and down the country, and she has done an enormous service to the House by raising them not just today but on many different days. There may be different elements of the matter on which we do not entirely agree, but I think that bringing such issues to the fore is vital.

I used to be a priest in the Church of England, in High Wycombe. That was where I served my title, and most of my work involved working with young kids—running the church youth groups and so on. Growing up was tough as a young person then; all the issues, such as bullying, the fear of missing out and peer pressure, existed way back then as well. In fact, I ended up doing a series of funerals for children who had taken their own lives, all of whom knew each other.

I am therefore very conscious that growing up has never been easy, but the changes over the last 25 or 30 years have been added to the equation: the arrival of the internet, smartphones with cameras, and social media; in some cases, the problems for chaotic families and those who are really struggling financially; and, in recent years, the problems that covid has brought, with lots of kids not being able to socialise in school in the way that we were all able to—I note that we are all a little bit older than the average. I am painfully aware, then, of the really difficult situation in which many young people are growing up today.

I am also conscious that human eyes today see much more violence. I am not making a flippant point, but I feel as if I have witnessed thousands of murders, just because every week a lot of television is about crime. In the old days, if a child went even to watch a film like “Jaws”, which has frightening moments in it, they would have been going with their parents. If they had been watching a crime programme on television, they would have been watching it with their parents.

Today, that probably is not true. Nearly everything they will have seen, they will see themselves on a small phone up in their room or in their friend’s room or round the back of the bike shed with some friends—although I am not sure whether the bike shed exists any more! The level of extreme violence and sexualised content that we are all witness to, and that children are witness to, often entirely on their own, needs to make us think and pause for a moment. Sometimes, this has meant that lots of kids have lost the ability to relate directly to other people, and that is, in the end, problematic. We need to deal with that.

Social media has turbocharged some of the worst aspects of humanity. Some people put on social media things that they would never ever write down on a piece of paper—that they would never think to put their own name to. A couple of Members have raised anonymity, which is undoubtedly part of the issue. People create some other identity for themselves, which somehow allows them to say some of the absolutely vilest, most despicable things imaginable. It has not been mentioned, but I would add that the algorithms often contribute to the process. They are not neutral, and often exacerbate some of the worst aspects of humanity. I will say a few things about the social media companies in a moment, but they need to take cognisance of that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise for my late arrival this morning, Sir George—I had a Northern Ireland Affairs Committee meeting this morning, and I had to ask for permission to leave.

On the issue of suicide, the Northern Ireland figures for those aged 16 to 24 in 2014 to 2016 are incredibly worrying. One in 10 children in Northern Ireland suffer from anxiety and depression, which is 25% higher than other UK jurisdictions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any policy on this issue must be UK-wide?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

It needs to be UK-wide, but it also needs to recognise devolution. We have been talking about schools, for instance, and some of those issues are devolved responsibilities in Scotland, Northen Ireland and Wales, so we need to work across the whole UK. Of course, some of these issues are not just national, but international, because in many cases we are dealing with companies whose profits may be made in this country but who may not be taxed in this country and are headquartered elsewhere.

Let me state some first principles. First, obviously the primary duty of any Government is to keep its citizens safe. We say that endlessly and repeatedly, but we seem to always think that it means national security and policing. Actually, it is also about online safety for children, as has been said by several Members today.

Secondly, mental health is just as important as physical health. To anybody who thinks it is just about people pulling up their socks or whatever, I say that that just does not meet the need. We should all have understood that better by now. I will say this gently: it was a misstep and a mistake for some to refer to the Online Safety Act as “legislating for hurt feelings.” Hurt feelings can lead to very serious physical harm. We know the story of Brianna Ghey. I will not rehearse it, but I pay enormous tribute to her mother, who has shown extraordinary levels of humanity.

[Vicky Ford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I will not, if the right hon. Lady does not mind, because I have several points to make— I am terribly sorry.

Physical and personal interaction with others is vital to humanity. I apologise for the casual sexism of the early 17th century, but John Donne said:

“No man is an island,

Entire of itself;

…

Any man’s death diminishes me,

Because I am involved in mankind.

And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;

It tolls for thee.”

We are fundamentally social beings, and sometimes social media can enable that. Grandparents FaceTime with their grandchildren, and they would of course never have dreamed of being able to do so 30 years ago. That is wonderful, but where social media replaces social interaction, we have long-term problems.

Of course, social media and the internet can be enormously valuable. As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said, she gets lost if she does not have Google Maps working—sometimes I cannot get it to work properly. I do not know how anybody ever managed to meet up back in the 1960s and 1970s. These are all wonderful innovations, and they are great for kids, too. They have a place in education: I want lots of kids to learn how to create apps and be part of the vibrant UK economy by creating video games and all the rest of it. That is part of the issue, but we cannot just bow down before that altar and surrender everything.

My other fundamental principle is that no executive is above the law, which is why I believe that swift and full implementation of the Online Safety Act is so important. I echo the points that have already been made. The Minister probably agrees that it has taken us too long to get to this point with the Online Safety Act. I will not make partisan points about all the ups and downs and ins and outs, but it has taken too long, and I worry about whether the next processes will happen anywhere near fast enough.

There are some things that Labour is keen to do. First, we need better mental health support for young people. It is shocking that one in four 17 to 19-year-olds in England now have a mental health problem. That is up from one in 10 in 2017, which is a dramatic increase. That may be partly to do with covid, but it is a significant problem. We want to put many more specialist mental health professionals into schools. I have family members who work in this field, and they desperately need more support. Early support is really important in preventing escalation. The problem of brain injuries in schools has hardly been recognised, and the Government will not even be able to give us proper numbers on how many kids in schools have had a brain injury and needed support. Also, creative education can be an important part of fostering better self-confidence, self-understanding, socialisation, and team working, and one of the problems over recent years is that that has fallen away.

Age guidelines must be truly effective, and it is worrying that Ofcom’s early research on stopping children using social media finds that it is almost impossible to do so even for children as young as five. That is highly problematic, and much more work needs to be done. For all sorts of economic reasons of their own, social media companies have failed to regulate themselves. They have sometimes not told the full truth about what their algorithms do, or about their economic model. The divide between those who argue, “No nanny state,” and those who argue, “Protect our children,” is a false dichotomy. The question is not “What legislation?” but, “How do we make sure that we have the right legislation?”

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for securing this important debate. She is a passionate campaigner, and I thank her for her engagement on this issue on numerous occasions, including by coming to see me. I also thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant); worryingly, this is the second time in about 24 hours that I have found myself agreeing with him.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Resign!

[Saqib Bhatti]

The hon. Gentleman calls on me to resign. Before he asks me to join him on his Benches, I should say that a space on our Benches recently became available, if he wants it. I found myself in considerable agreement with him.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. This is clearly a hugely complex issue. I want to start by stating that before being a Minister, I am a parent. I probably make my colleagues sick by talking about that constantly, but it is one of the most rewarding and fulfilling privileges of my lifetime. Being a parent is also one of the scariest things. I have to worry, as we all do, about whether they will grow up to be healthy, make friends at school and, now, whether they will be safe in the online world as well as in the offline world.

I also want my children to have a fulfilling childhood, to learn the skills of tomorrow while we protect them online. Therein lies the conundrum.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

My right hon. Friend is quite right. That is one of the key pillars in our science and technology framework. This should be a partnership with industry. We have already begun that journey, working with the likes of the Schmidt Foundation, and I look forward to updating the House on our further collaboration with industry.

Let us look at something like Alzheimer’s disease, an illness that is projected to impact one in three people born this year in their lifetime. Many people here today or watching the debate will know at first hand the devastating impact that that illness can cause, yet there is hope, through the extraordinary opportunities for progress made possible by quantum technology. British researchers are already in the building stages of quantum sensors that can map the human brain in a way that is unimaginable to us at the moment.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

My father has dementia and is in a care home—he has been during covid—so I know that it is really important to make significant advances in this field. One of the difficulties for business that are trying to take great scientific and medical ideas into the market is that it is much more costly if we have a different regulatory regime in this country from the rest of Europe. Will the Secretary of State ensure that we align our regulatory regime in this field with the rest of Europe, rather than diverge from it?

[Michelle Donelan]

The Chancellor, at the same time as delivering the Budget, published the Vallance review of the regulation of new and emerging technologies. That is all about how we can support the incubation of technologies, and how we should have a lighter touch to regulation in the first stages and then synergise with the rest of the world later on. I invite the hon. Member to read that very useful document.

BBC: Government Role in Impartiality

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my hon. Friend for his commentary, especially given his experience as a former BBC employee. His contributions in this regard are always valuable. He is absolutely right: impartiality is core to the purpose of the BBC and fundamental to the trust in which it is held; it underpins the social compact on which the licence fee rests. I am sure that that is fundamentally respected by the vast majority of BBC staff, many of whom will be asking why the rules that apply to them are not always applied consistently to everyone in the organisation.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

British broadcasting is the best in the world. Considering we are a relatively small country, we do phenomenally well in managing to sell our product to the rest of the world. Broadcasting is a mixed economy, and to me, having the BBC funded by licence fee payers, providing something for everybody because it is paid for by everybody, is absolutely essential to ensuring that we maintain that pre-eminence in the world.

Yes, trust is at the heart of it. I too used to work for the BBC. I worked quite closely with a former Conservative chairman of the BBC, Sir Christopher Bland. A very fine man, he would never have allowed this moment to arrive, because he would have known that if he had expressed any political opinions personally, it would have undermined the position of the BBC; and if he had failed to reveal something about his relationship to the Government when he was appointed by a Conservative Government, that would have undermined the BBC. I am absolutely sure that if Sir Christopher Bland had been in the situation that Richard Sharp is in today, he would have resigned by now, because he knew that the BBC was more important than him.

My real worry is that I understand that the Prime Minister has now said that he wants the review into Richard Sharp’s appointment, which the Minister has referred to several times today, to be kicked into the long grass. That is my understanding. Can the Minister tell us when the review will come to a conclusion? At the moment, Richard Sharp remaining at the BBC is bringing the whole of the BBC into disrepute.

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for sharing his experience as a former BBC employee. He is absolutely right that in a world of fake news, trust is the BBC’s currency, and one that we should protect. As I mentioned, the FCDO has given additional funding for some of the BBC’s important operations around the world. He is also right to say that people should leave their political opinions at the door when they seek to engage. As far as I am aware, Mr Sharp has not sought to be a politically active person on the board, but as I said, having political opinions and involvement do not preclude an individual being appointed to the board. The hon. Gentleman talks about the Prime Minister trying to delay the process. That is not true. The process is not in the gift of the Prime Minister. We await the timetable as the hon. Gentleman does.