Artificial Intelligence: Regulation
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The noble Viscount makes an important point. This will be global; there is no question about it. Therefore, there needs to be some degree of interoperability between different regions in terms of the regulations put in place. At the moment, as I said, of the two most advanced, the US is the biggest AI nation in the world and is developing a regulation along similar lines to ours, we believe. The EU is of course the most regulated place in the world for AI and we need to work out, in consultation over the next months, how to make sure that we work out where the areas of interoperability will lie.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that any advisory committees on regulation of AI should include smaller companies involved in the sector and also representation from the regions?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
This is an area where there were something like 100 new start-ups in the last year alone. We have something like 4,000 small companies. It is an area where small companies are critically important and must be involved in the discussion. It is worth remembering that some of the enormous companies were small companies not very long ago in this space; it is moving fast. I will also take this opportunity to say how fantastic it is that, in our own country, we had a Nobel prize awarded to Demis Hassabis for his extraordinary work and that of his colleague John Jumper at Google DeepMind.
AI Seoul Summit
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Saqib Bhatti
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I will not try to pronounce the name of that university or that company; what I will say is that AI does not recognise borders, so it is really important for China to be in the room, having those conversations. What those 16 companies signed up to was a world first, by the way: companies from the US, the United Arab Emirates, China and, of course, the UK signed that commitment. This is the first time that they have agreed in writing that they will not deploy or develop models that test the thresholds. Those thresholds will be divined at the AI action summit in France, so my hon. Friend is exactly right that we need a collaborative global approach.
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster ExcerptsMonday 20th November 2023
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 View all Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 20 November 2023 - (20 Nov 2023)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Government new clause 6.
New clause 23—Digital Markets Unit and CMA: annual statement to House of Commons—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, once a year, make a written statement to the House of Commons giving the Secretary of State’s assessment of the conduct and operation of—
(a) the Digital Markets Unit, and
(b) the CMA as a whole.
(2) The first statement must be made by 1 February 2024.
(3) A further statement must be made by 1 February each subsequent year.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make a written statement about the conduct and operation of the DMU and CMA.
New clause 27—Appointment of senior director of the DMU—
“The senior director of the Digital Markets Unit must be appointed by the Secretary of State.”
This new clause provides that the senior director of the DMU must be appointed by the Secretary of State.
New clause 28—Duty of the CMA: Citizens interest provisions—
“(1) The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 25(3) insert—
“(3A) When carrying out its functions in relation to the regulation of competition in digital markets under Part 1 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, the CMA must seek to promote competition, both within and outside the United Kingdom, for the benefit of consumers and citizens.””
This new clause would give the CMA a duty to further the interests of citizens – as well as consumers – when carrying out its digital markets functions under Part 1 of the Bill.
Amendment 176, in clause 2, page 2, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert—
“(b) distinctive digital characteristics giving rise to competition law concerns such that the undertaking has a position of strategic significance (see section 6).”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 182.
Amendment 206, page 2, line 25, after “Chapter” insert “, taking account of analysis undertaken by the CMA on similar issues that have been the subject of public consultation.”
This amendment aims to ensure that the CMA are able to draw on previous analysis on issues relevant to the regulatory regime.
Amendment 177, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(5) The CMA must publish terms of reference setting out a summary of the evidence base for making a finding of substantial and entrenched market power or of a position of strategic significance.
(6) The terms of reference must include a detailed statement of the competition law concerns arising from these characteristics and the relationship between the designated digital activity and other activities.
(7) Activities with no reasonable prospect of adverse competitive effects linked to digital activity must be referred to as unrelated activities and the terms of reference must expressly state that unrelated activities are not covered by the designation.”
This amendment would require the CMA to publish terms of reference summarising the evidence base for a finding of substantial and entrenched market power or a finding of strategic significance.
Amendment 178, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, after “service” insert “predominantly”
This amendment clarifies that the provision of a service predominantly by means of the internet would be a digital activity.
Amendment 179, page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (2)
This amendment is linked to Amendment 178.
Amendment 180, in clause 5, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
“(c) are not assuaged by evidence of competition arising beyond the activities of the undertaking, and
(d) demonstrate that the perceived market power will be improved compared with the scenario in which the designation does not occur.”
This amendment makes additions to the definition of substantial and entrenched market power.
Amendment 181, in clause 6, page 3, line 31, leave out “one or more of” and insert “both”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 182.
Amendment 182, page 3, line 33, leave out paragraphs (a) to (d) and insert—
“(a) significant network effects are present;
(b) the undertaking’s position in respect of the digital activity would allow it to extend its market power.”
This amendment changes the definition of the term “position of strategic significance”.
Amendment 183, in clause 7, page 4, line 17 at end insert “arising from the designated activities”
This amendment limits the turnover condition in relation to UK turnover to turnover arising from designated activities.
Amendment 184, page 4, line 19, at end insert “to account for inflation on the CPI measure”
This amendment ensures that the sums used to determine whether the turnover condition has been met can only be amended to account for inflation on the CPI measure.
Amendment 194, in clause 11, page 6, line 36, at end insert—
“(c) give a copy of the statement to those undertakings that have not been designated as having SMS that are most directly affected.”
This amendment ensures that challenger firms are able to access information about the regulatory framework on an equal basis to designated firms.
Amendment 195, in clause 12, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) As soon as reasonably practicable after giving a notice under subsection (2), the CMA must give a copy of the notice to those undertakings that have not been designated as having SMS that are most directly affected.”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 194.
Amendment 196, in clause 14, page 7, line 36, at end insert—
“(5A) As soon as reasonably practicable after giving an SMS decision notice, the CMA must give a copy of the notice to those undertakings that have not been designated as having SMS that are most directly affected.”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 194.
Government amendments 2 and 3.
Amendment 197, in clause 15, page 8, line 41, at end insert—
“(6) As soon as reasonably practicable after giving a revised SMS decision notice, the CMA must give a copy of the revised notice to those undertakings that have not been designated as having SMS that are most directly affected.”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 194.
Government amendments 4 to 7.
Amendment 193, in clause 19, page 11, line 15, at end insert—
“(9A) A conduct requirement must be imposed within 3 months of an undertaking being designated as having SMS under section 2.”
This amendment ensures that a time frame of three months is imposed for the CMA to enforce conduct requirements on designated SMS firms.
Government amendment 8.
Amendment 190, in clause 20, page 12, line 9, after “to”, insert “harm competition in the relevant digital activity or the other activity,”
This amendment would ensure that the CMA can tackle anti-competitive conduct in a non-designated activity, provided that the anti-competitive conduct is related to a designated activity.
Amendment 191, page 12, line 11, after “activity”, insert “, provided that the conduct is related to the relevant digital activity”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 190.
Government amendments 9 and 10.
Amendment 192, in clause 25, page 14, line 7, at end insert—
“(e) whether to take action in accordance with Chapter 4 (Pro-competitive interventions) in respect of the extent to which it is complying with each conduct requirement to which it is subject and the effectiveness of each conduct requirement to which it is subject.”
This amendment would ensure that the CMA considers the efficacy of existing Conduct Requirements when considering whether to make Pro-Competitive Interventions.
Government amendments 11 and 12.
Amendment 198, in clause 26, page 15, line 3, at end insert—
“(7) As soon as reasonably practicable after giving a conduct investigation notice, the CMA must give a copy of the conduct investigation notice to those undertakings that have not been designated as having SMS that are most directly affected.”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 194.
Amendment 187, in clause 27, page 15, line 8, at end insert—
“(2) The CMA may have regard to any significant benefits to users or potential users that the CMA considers have resulted, or may be expected to result, from a factor or combination of factors resulting from a breach of a conduct requirement.”
This amendment would ensure that the CMA considers any significant benefits to users resulting from the breach of a Conduct Requirement when it is considering representations from designated undertakings as part of a Conduct Investigation.
Amendment 199, in clause 28, page 15, line 20, at end insert—
“(5) As soon as reasonably practicable after giving a notice under subsection (2), the CMA must give a copy of the notice to those undertakings that have not been designated as having SMS that are most directly affected.”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 194.
Amendment 188, page 15, line 21, leave out Clause 29.
This Amendment is consequential to Amendment 187.
Government amendment 13.
Amendment 186, in clause 29, page 15, line 31, leave out subsection (c) and insert—
“(c) the conduct is necessary for the realisation of those benefits based on the best available evidence reasonably obtainable, and”
This amendment would change the circumstances in which the countervailing benefits exemption would apply.
Government amendment 14.
Amendment 209, page 15, line 37, at end insert—
“(4) The CMA may only consider that the countervailing benefits exemption applies if it has reached such a consideration within six months of the day on which the conduct investigation notice is given to the undertaking.
(5) In subsection (2), a “benefit” means any benefit of a type set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State in accordance with the procedure under subsections (6) to (9).
(6) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this section coming into force, lay before Parliament draft regulations setting out the types of benefit that apply for purposes of subsection (2).
(7) A Minister of the Crown must make a motion in each House of Parliament to approve the draft regulations within 14 days of the date on which they were laid.
(8) Subject to subsection (9), if the draft regulations are approved by both Houses of Parliament, the Secretary of State must make them in the form of the draft which has been approved.
(9) If any amendments to the draft regulations are agreed to by both Houses of Parliament, the Secretary of State must make the regulations in the form of the draft as so amended.”
This amendment would introduce a 6 month time limit on the duration of investigations into countervailing benefits claims, and specifies that the Secretary of State shall introduce further legislation for Parliamentary debate providing an exhaustive list of the types of countervailing benefits SMS firms are able to claim.
Amendment 200, in clause 30, page 16, line 13, at end insert—
“(4A) As soon as reasonably practicable after giving the notice, the CMA must give a copy of the notice to those undertakings that have not been designated as having SMS that are most directly affected.”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 194.
Government amendments 15 and 16.
Amendment 201, in clause 31, page 17, line 3, at end insert—
“(7A) As soon as reasonably practicable after making an enforcement order (including a revised version of an order), the CMA must give a copy of the order to those undertakings that have not been designated as having SMS that are most directly affected.”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 194.
Amendment 202, in clause 32, page 17, line 35, at end insert—
“(6A) As soon as reasonably practicable after giving a notice under subsection (5), the CMA must give a copy of the notice to those undertakings that have not been designated as having SMS that are most directly affected.”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 194.
Amendment 203, in clause 34, page 18, line 36, at end insert—
“(4A) As soon as reasonably practicable after revoking an enforcement order, the CMA must give a copy of the notice to those undertakings that have not been designated as having SMS that are most directly affected.”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 194.
Government amendments 17 and 18.
Amendment 189, in clause 38, page 21, line 7, leave out “breached an enforcement order, other than an interim enforcement order” and insert “breached a conduct requirement”
This amendment would allow the CMA to initiate the Final Offer Mechanism after a Conduct Requirement of the type permitted by clause 20(2)(a) has first been breached, provided that the other conditions in clause 38 are met.
Government amendments 19 to 30.
Amendment 204, in clause 47, page 26, line 8, at end insert—
“(4A) As soon as reasonably practicable after giving a PCI investigation notice or a revised version of the PCI investigation notice, the CMA must give a copy of the notice to those undertakings that have not been designated as having SMS that are most directly affected.”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 194.
Amendment 205, in clause 50, page 27, line 28, at end insert—
“(6A) As soon as reasonably practicable after making a pro-competition order, the CMA must give a copy of the order to those undertakings that have not been designated as having SMS that are most directly affected.”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 194.
Government amendments 31 to 56.
Amendment 185, in clause 102, page 61, line 10, leave out subsections (6) and (7) and insert—
“(6) In determining an application under this section—
(a) for any application made within a period of three years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Tribunal must determine the application on the merits by reference to the grounds set out in the application;
(b) for any application made thereafter, the Tribunal must apply the same principles as would be applied—
(i) in the case of proceedings in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, by the High Court in determining proceedings on judicial review; and
(ii) in the case of proceedings in Scotland, by the Court of Session on an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the court.
(7) The Tribunal may—
(a) for any application made within a period of three years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, confirm or set aside the decision which is the subject of the application, or any part of it, and may—
(i) remit the matter to the CMA,
(ii) take other such steps as the CMA could itself have given or taken, or
(iii) make any other decision which the CMA could itself have made;
(b) for any application made thereafter—
(i) dismiss the application or quash the whole or part of the decision to which it relates. and
(ii) where it quashes the whole or part of that decision, refer the matter back to the CMA with a direction to reconsider and make a new decision in accordance with a ruling of the Tribunal.”
This amendment changes for a three-year period the mechanism by which the Tribunal would determine applications for review.
Government amendments 57 to 67, 83 and 84, 106, 108, 111, 148 and 149.
Saqib Bhatti
I am honoured to have been appointed as the Minister with responsibility for tech and the digital economy, and as one of the Ministers with responsibility for the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill. When I was appointed last Tuesday, many helpful colleagues came up to me to say, “You have been thrown in at the deep end,” but it is a blessing to have responsibility for taking this legislation through the House.
In that vein, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for his tireless work to get the Bill to this stage.
I am aware of the importance of this legislation and the sentiment across the House to deliver the Bill quickly. The benefits of the digital market measures in part 1 of the Bill are clear to see. They will bring about a more dynamic digital economy, which prioritises innovation, growth and the delivery of better outcomes for consumers and small businesses. The rise of digital technologies has been transformative, delivering huge value to consumers and businesses. However, a small number of firms exert immense control across strategically critical services online because the unique characteristics of digital markets, such as network effects and data consolidation, make them prone to tip in favour of a few firms. The new digital markets regime will remove obstacles to competition and drive growth in digital markets, by proactively driving more dynamic markets and by preventing harmful practices such as making it difficult to switch between operating systems.
I turn now to the Government amendments. When the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) first stood in the House, he stated that the legislation would unleash the full opportunities of digital markets for the UK. That intention has not changed, and our amendments fully support that. The Government’s amendments to part 1 will provide greater clarity to parties interacting with the regime, enhance the accountability of the regulator and make sure that the legislation is drafted effectively and meets its aims. I will address each of those themes in order.
This new regime is novel. To maximise certainty, it is critical that its parameters—the scopes of the regulator’s functions and the rights and obligations set out in the legislation—are clear. Therefore, the Government have tabled a series of amendments to further clarify how the digital markets regime will work in practice. The amendments relate to how legally binding commitments provided by firms within the scope of the regime will work in practice, the Digital Market Unit’s ability to amend certain decision notices, and how in certain circumstances the DMU may use its investigatory and enforcement powers after a firm is no longer designated.
Two important sets of clarifying amendments are worth covering in more detail. The first relates to conduct requirements. Consumer benefit is a central focus of the digital markets regime. The DMU must consider consumer benefit when shaping the design of its interventions. To reinforce that central focus, we are clarifying how the DMU will consider consumer benefits when imposing and enforcing conduct requirements. Amendment 7 requires the DMU to explain the consumer benefits that it expects to result from a conduct requirement, ensuring transparent, well-evidenced decisions. Amendments 13 and 14 simplify the wording of the countervailing benefits exemption, while critically maintaining the same high threshold.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I have to get five more speakers in, plus the Minister. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will shortly have been on his feet for nearly 25 minutes, this is just a quick reminder that he needs to give others time to speak.
Sir Robert Buckland
Of course. I have just cleared my throat, Madam Deputy Speaker, and by my standards this is a very short speech.
I will deal in summary with the other amendments. What I am seeking with those amendments is to ensure that, in using definitions, we do not end up creating mission creep for the DMU. I want the DMU to focus on the emerging digital economy; I do not want it to end up dealing with, for example, supermarkets such as Tesco, which will increasingly use online services to allow customers to shop. I do not think that is the intention of those proposing the Bill, but we need to make it clear in the Bill that that sort of mission creep will not be part of how the regulator develops.
I also want to make the point that, when looking at entrenched market power, focusing purely on size can sometimes be deceptive. Rather small enterprises can often have a disproportionate effect on a market. They do not necessarily need to be big. While we rightly understand that generally the bigger the entity or organisation, the bigger the impact it has, it is not always the elephant that makes a difference; it is sometimes the mouse. That is why focusing on market power rather than size is a better way of dealing with effective regulation.
In summary, I want to hear from my hon. Friends on the Front Bench a response to the challenges that I have laid out. I do not seek to press the amendments to a vote this evening, but I am sure that they will be returned to in the other place. Surely it is in the interests not only of the people we serve, but of the wider British economy that in passing such pioneering legislation, which in many ways puts Britain in a different place from other jurisdictions, we do not end up disincentivising the sort of investment that I know is part of the Prime Minister’s aspiration to make this country a world leader in artificial intelligence and machine learning safety and a place where digital businesses will want to invest. It is as simple as that. That is why it is vital that in this Bill we strike as perfect a balance as we can, because in this complex, ever-changing market it is very difficult to predict what the future will be.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
My party broadly welcomed the Bill at its introduction and through Committee, and broadly speaking we still do. However, for our liking there remain too many gaps in consumer protection. The Bill does not include an equivalent to the EU’s consumer rights to redress when consumers are misled, and it does not baseline the protections that we had previously, which we think is a serious omission. Many consumers found that to their cost when their travel arrangements went haywire through chaos at the channel ports over the summer.
The Bill does not do enough to tackle greenwashing. As we have heard, there is a systemic failure to tackle drip pricing and subscription traps. We are also still unclear about how the Government intend to tackle the scourge of fake reviews; although secondary legislation could be introduced, the scope of the sanctions that could be brought to bear against the perpetrators would inevitably be restricted.
Rather to my surprise, we have 175 Government amendments to the Bill. That seems rather a lot to be bringing in. It can be gently elided over that this is a Government who have been listening carefully to all the arguments put, but, to be perfectly honest, I think it shows that this has become something of a Christmas tree Bill. It would have been better to have had much more parliamentary scrutiny in Committee of some of the things we now find coming in, no matter how well-intentioned they are.
A number of amendments to the Bill do cause me concern, including the series of amendments that changes the mechanism for appealing the Competition and Markets Authority’s decisions. In our view, Government amendments 6, 7, 10 and 30 will water down the Bill’s effectiveness, allowing tech companies described under the Bill as the most powerful firms and dynamic digital markets to be able to challenge the CMA’s decisions if they do not believe that they are proportionate.
Government amendments 51 to 53, 55 and 56 also have that effect, since they will prevent certain appeals by big-tech firms of decisions made by the CMA from being held to the judicial review standard. I am unpersuaded by the arguments that we have heard so far about that. We fear that, in practice, when a decision is taken that is not, for whatever reason, to the liking of big-tech companies with rather large budgets—to take one entirely at random, we have Apple, which makes profits and turnover yields that are bigger than most countries’ GDPs—they will inevitably be able to tie those decisions up in the courts for quite some time, all the while being able to secure whatever advantage they had which the CMA had judged they got unfairly. The CMA has warned that changing the appeal mechanism could lead to such a set of drawn-out legal battles and quite an adversarial relationship with the firms that it seeks to regulate, which I would venture is far removed from the Bill’s original intention.
It is unusual that I should ever pray in aid the other place in a political argument, but last month the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee called on the Government to maintain the JR standard for all appeals. It is therefore worrying, if not entirely surprising, that the extensive lobbying that some of the bigger tech companies have subjected us to seems to have found the ear of the Government.
If the UK Government’s amendments 6, 7, 10 and 30, which seek to allow firms with strategic market status to appeal against CMA decisions, are accepted, that will essentially undermine the CMA’s job and ability to protect consumers. Those amendments would allow big tech firms to appeal against decisions taken by the regulators on significant issues such as blocking mergers and issuing fines simply on the basis of their feeling that they may not be proportionate. As I say, they can certainly afford to spend huge amounts of money on legal representations to quibble with these decisions, particularly if the fines or deprivation of the opportunity to make lots of money mean that they feel it is worth spending that money whatever the eventual chances of success are.
This is in addition to the letter that Baroness Stowell wrote to the PM last month warning that the UK Government must not “undermine” the Competition and Markets Authority, noting that these amendments would
“favour those with an interest in delaying regulatory intervention”
and give greater power to avoid scrutiny to the tech firms
“with the greatest resources”.
The UK Government should not be ignoring these warnings, and we believe that this is a detrimental addition to the Bill. This position was also backed up by Which? in April last year. In our view, these amendments show that the Government have done the exact opposite of sticking to their guns on this.
I am mindful of the time—as are you, Madam Deputy Speaker—so I shall come to the amendments that I believe we will be voting on later. Labour amendments 187 and 188 would enable the Competition and Markets Authority to consider any significant benefits, due to a combination of factors, that might result from a breach of the conduct requirement. We think that strikes a reasonable and fair balance on where we would like the outcomes to be, and should the amendments be pressed to a vote, the SNP will be supporting them.
Artificial Intelligence Safety Summit
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michelle Donelan
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of building trust among the public, which will also ensure the adoption of AI. In relation to ensuring that we deploy AI throughout our public services, it was this Government who just the other week announced £100 million to accelerate AI in our health missions, and more than £2 million to assist our teachers to spend less time with paperwork and administration and more time in the classroom. We will continue to work hand in hand with the Cabinet Office to ensure that we utilise AI in our public services, but to be able to do that, we must of course grip the risk, which is exactly why we called the summit.
On computing, the hon. Member will be only too aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced earlier this year £900 million for an exascale programme, which we have allocated in Edinburgh. We have also dedicated £300 million—triple the original amount announced—to AI research resource facilities in Cambridge and Bristol, the first of which will come on stream this year.
The hon. Member also referenced the risk document that we published. We were the first Government in the world to be fully transparent with the British public, showcasing the risks that AI could present. That document was produced by scientists and our national security teams.
The hon. Member referenced legislation and regulation. It is not true that we have no regulation; in fact, we have multiple regulators. In the White Paper that we published earlier this year, we set out the principles that they need to work to. We should not minimise what we achieved just last week: that agreement to do testing pre-deployment is monumental. It is—absolutely—the start of a process, not the end. We could have waited and said, “Let’s just do our own piece of legislation,” which would have taken about a year, as he knows, but we do not have a year to wait, because the next set of models will come out with six months. We also need to deepen our understanding of the risks before we rush to legislate, because we believe that we need to better understand the problems before we insert long-term fixed solutions.
We need to concentrate on putting the safety of the British public first, which is what we have done, so that we can seize the limitless opportunities of AI. I hope that the hon. Member will see the foresight that this Government have had in putting that not just on the British agenda but on the agenda of the world.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
May I congratulate the Government on convening the summit and on its success? It is, as the Secretary of State said, a considerable achievement to get the US, the EU and China to agree a communiqué. It was good to have access to the frontier models that the summit agreed. Having future summits, in six months’ time, is also an important step forward.
As the Secretary of State said, the summit focused principally on frontier AI, but it is vital that we can deal with the here-and-now risks of the AI being deployed already. In the White Paper that they published in March, the Government said that they expected to legislate to have regulators pay
“due regard to the principles”
of that White Paper, but such a Bill was missing from the King’s Speech. Meanwhile, in the US, a very extensive executive order has been issued, and the EU is finalising its Artificial Intelligence Act.
Will the Secretary of State think again, in publishing the response to the White Paper, about taking this final opportunity before a general election to ensure that the good intentions and practice of the Government are not inadvertently left behind, with other jurisdictions’ legislation preceding our own and other people setting the rules rather than the United Kingdom setting a framework for the world?
Michelle Donelan
I thank my right hon. Friend for his important question. I think it is right that we do not rush to legislate, because we need to understand properly the risks that we are facing. That is why we have been investing in bringing on board the correct experts, both into Government and into the taskforce that will now morph into the institute. It is why we have also committed not just ourselves but our international partners to producing the “state of the science” reports, so that we can stay up to date with those risks.
Absolutely, we will eventually have to legislate, but as we said in the White Paper that we published earlier this year, we do not need to rush to do that; we need to get the timing right to ensure that we have the right solutions to match those problems. There is a lot that we can do without legislation. We demonstrated that last week by convening the world for collective action to secure pre-model deployment testing, to ensure that we work together to get a better handle on the risks, and to encourage partners such as America to go further, on which we have seen us and them acting in lockstep.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The Bletchley declaration provides a baseline and is useful as a starting point, but it will be ongoing engagement that counts as we develop our understanding of the opportunities and threats that AI presents.
I was very taken by the Secretary of State saying that this was not an opportunity for party political point scoring. In that vein, on reflection, does she share my disappointment that the UK Government seemed to actively take steps to exclude the involvement of the devolved Administrations from around these islands from participation in the summit? Any claim that the UK might have to global leadership in AI rests in large part on the work that goes on in all parts of these islands, particularly from a legal, ethical, regulatory and technological perspective. It would have been very valuable had the other Governments that exist on these islands had the opportunity to fully participate in the summit.
While the declaration is a useful starting point, it is the future work on this that will count, so may I have an assurance from the Secretary of State that the UK Government will not seek to curtail again the involvement of devolved Administrations around these islands in future national and international discussions on these matters?
Michelle Donelan
To repeat the comments I made earlier, AI is not a devolved matter, and the people of Scotland were represented by the UK Government—by me and also by the Prime Minister of the UK. In relation to her urging us to do a copycat of EU legislation, may I point out that it was our White Paper that was praised for its innovation and its agility? It has allowed us to attract some of the leading AI companies to set up their first international offices here in the UK, creating the jobs not only of today, but of tomorrow.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement.
Online Safety Bill
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster ExcerptsTuesday 12th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 12 September 2023 - (12 Sep 2023)
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I have three more speakers. I ask that colleagues bear that in mind so that I can bring in the Minister.
Sir William Cash
I would like to mention a very long journey in relation to the protection of children, because to my mind that is right at the heart of the Bill’s social value. I think it was Disraeli who said:
“The youth of a nation are the trustees of posterity.”
If we get it right in the early stages of their lives and we provide legislation that enables them to be properly protected, we are likely to get things right for the future. The Bill does that in a very good way.
The Bill also reflects some of the things in which I found myself involved in 1977—just over 45 years ago—with the Protection of Children Bill when Cyril Townsend came top of the private Member’s Bill ballot. I mention that because at that time we received resistance from Government Ministers and others—I am afraid I must say that it was a Labour Minister—but we got the Bill through as the then Prime Minister James Callaghan eventually ensured it did so. His wife insisted on it, as a matter of fact.
I pay tribute to the House of Lords. Others have repeatedly mentioned the work of Baroness Kidron, but I would also like to mention Lord Bethell, Baroness Morgan and others, because it has been a combined effort. It has been Parliament at its best. I have heard others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), make that point. It has been a remarkably lengthy but none the less essential process, and I pay tribute to those people for what they have done.
In retrospect, I would like to mention Baroness Lucy Faithfull, because back in 1977-78 I would not have known what to do if she had not worked relentlessly in the House of Lords to secure the measures necessary to protect children from sexual images and pornographic photography—it was about assault, and I do not need to go into the detail. The bottom line is that it was the first piece of legislation that swung the pendulum towards common sense and proportionality in matters that, 45 years later, have culminated in what has been discussed in the Bill and the amendments today.
I pay tribute to Ian Russell and to the others here whose children have been caught up in this terrible business. I pay specific tribute to the Secretary of State and the Minister, and also the Health Secretary for his statement yesterday about a national suicide strategy, in which he referenced amendments to the Bill. Because I have had a lot to do with him, I would like to pay tribute to Richard Collard of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, who has not been mentioned yet, for working so hard and effectively.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for her work to help get the amendments through. The written ministerial statement came after some interesting discussions with the Minister, who was a bit surprised by our vehemence and determination. It was not chariots of fire but chariots on fire, and within three weeks, by the time the Bill got to the House of Lords, we had a written ministerial statement that set the tone for the part of the Bill that I discussed just now, to protect children because they need protection at the right time in their lives.
The NSPCC tells us that 86% of UK adults want companies to understand how groomers and child abusers use their sites to harm children, and want action to prevent it by law. I came up with the idea, although the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) gave us a lot of support in a debate in this House at the time, and I am grateful to her for that. The fact that we are able to come forward with this legislation owes a great deal to a lot of people from different parts of the House.
I very much accept that continuing review is necessary. Many ideas have been put forward in this debate, and I am sure that the Minister is taking them all on board and will ensure that the review happens and that Ofcom acts accordingly, which I am sure it will want to. It is important that that is done.
I must mention that the fact we have left the European Union has enabled us to produce legislation to protect children that is very significantly stronger than European Union legislation. The Digital Services Act falls very far short of what we are doing here. I pay tribute to the Government for promoting ideas based on our self-government to protect our voters’ children and our society. That step could only have been taken now that we have left the European Union.
Research by the NSPCC demonstrates that four in five victims of online grooming offences are girls. It is worth mentioning that, because it is a significant piece of research. That means that there has to be clear guidance about the types of design that will be incorporated by virtue of the discussions to be had about how to make all this legislation work properly.
The only other thing I would like to say is that the £10-million suicide prevention grant fund announced yesterday complements the Bill very well. It is important that we have a degree of symmetry between legislation to prevent suicide and to ensure that children are kept safe.
EU Programmes
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan)
This is a momentous day for British science and technology as we have negotiated a great landmark deal, designed in the UK’s best interest. A hard-fought-for deal that will allow the UK’s world-leading scientists, researchers and businesses to participate with total confidence in both Horizon Europe and Copernicus, it gives the best and brightest of the UK’s scientific community access to the world’s largest research collaboration programme.
It means British scientists and businesses can co-operate with researchers not just in the EU, but in Norway, New Zealand and Israel, expanding the reach and impact of British science and technology to every corner of the globe. With Korea and Canada looking to join these programmes in the future, we are opening the doors to further pioneering, international collaboration with a growing group of countries.
We were always clear that we wanted to associate with Horizon and that is why we had it in the trade and co-operation agreement. However, as hon. Members know only too well, we were not able to commence those negotiations over the last two years because the European Union had linked it to the Northern Ireland protocol. However, our Prime Minister’s Windsor framework broke the deadlock and allowed us to commence negotiations.
We said all along that we would accept only a good deal, which is why we did not take the first deal on the table. Instead, we pursued a bespoke agreement that delivers for British taxpayers, researchers and businesses. We will not pay for a second of the time in which we were not members of the programme, and our deal protects and benefits hardworking taxpayers through a new clawback mechanism.
What is more, our scientists and researchers can benefit from Horizon today, meaning they can immediately bid into the programme, with certainty over funding. All calls in the 2024 work programme, including those that open for bids this year, will be funded through our association to Horizon, while the few remaining 2023 work programme calls will be funded by the UK guarantee.
But this is not just about Horizon. We needed a bespoke deal that gave us access only to EU programmes that would benefit the UK, not to those that would not. Listening to voices from our world-leading fusion sector, we will not be joining Euratom. Instead, we are investing an additional £650 million straight into our cutting-edge fusion sector, assisting our journey to becoming a science and technology superpower by 2030.
When I first started in this role, I made it my No.1 priority to listen to the voices and views of the scientific and tech communities. What I heard loud and clear was how essential associating to Horizon Europe was for the sector, and I am delighted that this Government have now delivered on that. The deal we have negotiated has been warmly welcomed by the whole of the scientific community. It gives it the certainty it needs to continue delivering long-term research and innovation, and it will enable it to change people’s lives and have a truly global outlook. Members do not need to take my word for it; today’s announcement has been supported by Universities UK, the Russell Group, all four of our prestigious national academies, leading tech businesses, including Airbus and Rolls Royce, and countless more.
The deal is not just about funding and support for universities, businesses and scientists. It is a deal that has a real-world impact for people and communities throughout the UK. This deal is set to create and support thousands of new jobs as part of a new generation of research talent who are attracted to the UK and work across the globe. The deal we have negotiated will allow the UK to continue to play a leading role on the international stage in solving the biggest challenges that we face, from climate change and the race to net zero to cures for cancer, dementia and other life-threatening diseases.
Alongside this deal, the Government are proudly backing our science and tech communities. We have committed to invest £20 billion in research and development by the next financial year. That means more record funding on wider priorities, from harnessing the power of AI to improving our public services to tapping the potential of quantum computing. We will continue to strengthen our collaboration with countries beyond Europe, building on the success of the international science partnership fund we launched earlier this year, to deliver our truly global science approach with global benefits.
Today we take another giant leap forward in our mission to make Britain a science and tech superpower. I am confident that scientists and businesses are ready to seize the moment. The horizon could not really be brighter for British science and technology. I commend the statement to the House.
Michelle Donelan
I welcome the right hon. Member to his position. I am delighted that the Opposition have finally got round to appointing a ministerial team to shadow the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—it took them six months, but they did get there in the end.
I am also delighted that the right hon. Member has acknowledged the significance of this Government deal, but to address his point about the delay, he knows only too well that it was the European Union that linked Horizon association directly with the Northern Ireland protocol and it is this Government and this Prime Minister who managed to unlock that with the Windsor framework. It is also this Government who bridged that gap with the Horizon guarantee, spending more than £1 billion.
As soon as the framework was agreed, I was the first to hop on the train to Brussels to see the commissioner to ensure that we could kickstart that negotiation. At the time, I was eight and a half months pregnant, but I thought that that was vital to our sector and I am glad that we are able to deliver today. One thing I will not do is apologise for the Government wanting to get a good deal. Let us remember it was the Opposition who called for us to accept the deal on the table back in March. If we had done that, we would not have this good deal for our taxpayers, our businesses, our scientists and our researchers. I have already—it was in the statement— clarified the point that we will not pay for one moment that we were not associated with Horizon, but I reiterate that point.
To answer some of the right hon. Member’s other questions, the cost will be £2 billion a year and, as I have said, we are injecting £650 million directly into our fusion sector. On Euratom, the Minister of State for Science, Research and Innovation agrees with me that it is the right strategy to proceed with Horizon and Copernicus, but not with Euratom. It is not just we who believe that. The Fusion Industry Association has welcomed the UK Government’s ambitious package of £650 million. Ian Chapman has said that he welcomes the clarity over our future relationship. In fact the association made representations directly to us in order to ensure that we put the money directly into our sector.
This is a great deal for Britain, for the taxpayer, for businesses, for scientists and for researchers. We believe that our country has the potential to be a science and tech superpower. It is a shame that the Opposition do not.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
Science does not recognise borders, and everyone wins when the best UK scientists can work with the best in the EU and around the world, so this is a huge and positive announcement and has been greeted with delight and relief not just by the science community in the UK, but across Europe and beyond.
My Select Committee, the members of which are in the Chamber, will examine the deal in detail, but may I congratulate the Secretary of State, her Minister and the whole of the Government on what seems to be a shrewd agreement that, for example, allows us to win grants even beyond our own financial contribution? Will she confirm that Horizon funding is available not just to academic institutions, but for innovation by British industry? Has she consulted formally the UK Atomic Energy Authority, which runs our fusion programme, about not participating in Euratom and, if so, what is its view? Does she agree that, with the reputation of British science as high as it is, with the science budget doubling as it has over the past 10 years to £20 billion a year by next year, and with now the opportunities of rejoining Horizon opening up, this is a golden opportunity for the UK to advance our status as a science superpower?
Michelle Donelan
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee. I am delighted that he has welcomed this announcement today. In relation to his comments on Euratom, we did consult widely the sector and the UK AEA, which has welcomed this publicly, along with many stakeholders, including the business community, which will also benefit from this announcement today.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The SNP welcomes this move, which will provide much-needed certainty and kickstart new research opportunities for key strength areas of the Scottish economy, including life sciences. The Prime Minister himself has said that rejoining this EU scheme is
“critical to a brighter economic future”.
But the SNP believes that rejoining the EU as a full member state is much more critical than that. Unfortunately, I know that this Government, and probably the incoming Labour Government, strongly disagree with that, to the detriment of Scotland.
Securing Horizon association is a matter of pressing importance. We must not forget that universities and members of the research community in Scotland have missed out on their share of the all-important funding provided by the €95.5 billion European research and innovation programme since the UK Government’s decision to pursue a hard Brexit.
We are disappointed that Euratom is not going to be pursued and is being taken separately. Although we welcome the funding, I think we all agree that it is much better that we work in conjunction with our European neighbours. Scotland has also been locked out of Copernicus, so what is the status of re-entering that and, indeed, the Erasmus+ scheme?
Points of Order
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that it is only a matter of time, but I correct the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for between them correcting the record.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to correct the record following my question to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs this morning. Since raising the matter, I have received an update from my local council that Afghan families expected this week are no longer coming from hotels to North Devon. This is an ongoing process, but we hope to welcome further refugees to North Devon in the near future.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for notifying me of it. We have had a lot of correcting of the record in these points of order, but her speed in doing so has been exemplary.
Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster ExcerptsMonday 17th April 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Data Protection and Digital Information Bill 2022-23 View all Data Protection and Digital Information Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to add some comments and make a contribution, and also to have heard all the right hon. and hon. Members’ speeches as I have sat here tonight. There will not be any votes on the Bill, I understand, but if there had been, my party would have supported the Government, because I think the intention of the Minister and the Government is to try to find a correct way forward. I hope that some of the tweaking that is perhaps needed can happen in a positive way that can address such issues. It is always good to speak in any debate in this House, but this is the first one after the recess, and I am indeed very pleased to be a part of any debates in the House. I have spoken on data protection and its importance in the House before, and I again wish to make a contribution, specifically on medical records and protection of health data with regard to GP surgeries. I hope to address that with some questions for the Minister at the end.
Realistically, data protection is all around us. I know all too well from my constituency office that there are guidelines. There are procedures that my staff and I must follow, and we do follow them very stringently. It is important that businesses, offices, healthcare facilities and so on are aware of the guidelines they must follow, hence the necessity of this Bill. As I have said, if there had been a vote, we would have supported the Government, but it seems that that will not be the case tonight. Data exposure means the full potential for it to fall into the wrong hands, posing dangers to people and organisations, so it is great to be here to discuss how we can prevent that, with the Government presenting the legislation tonight and taking it through Committee when the time comes.
I have recently had some issues with data protection—this is a classic example of how mistakes can happen and how important data can end up in the wrong place—when in two instances the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority accidentally published personal information about me and my staff online. It did not do it on purpose—it was an accident, and it did retrieve the data very quickly—but it has happened on two occasions at a time of severe threat in Northern Ireland and a level of threat on the mainland as well. Although the matter was quickly resolved, it is a classic example of the dangers posed to individuals.
I am sure Members are aware that the threat level in Northern Ireland has been increased. Despite there being external out-of-office security for Members, I have recently installed CCTV cameras in my office for the security of my staff, which, though not as great in comparison, is my responsibility. I have younger staff members in their 20s who live on their own, and staff who are parents of young children, and they deserve to know that they are safe. Anxieties have been raised because of the data disclosure, and I imagine that many others have experienced something similar.
I want to focus on issues about health. Ahead of this debate, I have been in touch with the British Medical Association, which raised completely valid concerns with me about the protection of health data. I have a number of questions to ask the Minister, if I may. The BMA’s understanding of the Bill is that the Secretary of State or the Minister will have significant discretionary powers to transfer large quantities of health information to third countries with minimal consultation or transparent assessment about how the information will benefit the UK. That is particularly worrying for me, and it should be worrying for everyone in this House. I am sure the Minister will give us some clarification and some reassurance, if that is possible, or tell us that this will not happen.
There is also concern about the Secretary of State having the power to transfer the same UK patients’ health data to a third country if it is thought that that would benefit the UK’s economic interests. I would be very disturbed, and quite annoyed and angry, that such a direction should be allowed. Again, the Minister may wish to comment on that at the end of the debate. I would be grateful if the Minister and his Department provided some clarity for the BMA about what the consultation process will be if information is to be shared with third-party countries or organisations.
There have also been concerns about whether large tech and social media companies are storing data correctly and upholding individuals’ rights or privacy correctly. We must always represent our constituents, and the Bill must ensure that the onus of care is placed on tech companies and organisations to legally store data safely and correctly. The safety and protection of data is paramount. We could not possibly vote for a Bill that undermined trust, furthered economic instability and eroded fundamental rights. Safeguards must be in place to protect people’s privacy, and that starts in the House today with this Bill. Can the Minister assure me and the BMA that our data will be protected and not shared willy-nilly with Tom, Dick and Harry? As I have said, protection is paramount, and we need to have it in place.
To conclude, we have heard numerous stories both from our constituents and in this place about the risks of ill-stored and unprotected data. The Bill must aim to retain high data protection standards without creating unnecessary barriers for individuals and businesses. I hope that the Minister and his Department can answer the questions we may have to ensure that the UK can be a frontrunner in safe and efficient data protection. We all want that goal. Let us make sure we go in the right direction to achieve it.
Classical Music: Funding and Support
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I call Jonathan Lord to make a brief contribution.
Julia Lopez
The choreography of tonight’s debate is intriguing, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is new to me, so I apologise if I am not playing my part very successfully.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is always a surprise when the motion lapses at 7 o’clock. I assure the Minister that many Ministers are caught out slightly.
Julia Lopez
I appreciate that reassurance, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is all good exercise for me as I try to maintain my mobility over the coming weeks.
I was about to say that I encouraged, on the Floor of the House, staff members to engage vigorously in the consultation that the BBC was running on the recent announcement. I was very glad that the BBC said last week that it will now undertake further work, in discussion with the Musicians’ Union, on the future of the BBC Singers. I also welcome the update that the BBC is engaging with the Musicians’ Union and other unions on its proposals on its English orchestras.
We agree, however, that the BBC should focus on prioritising value for licence fee payers. We welcome the intent to pursue greater distinctiveness while increasing the regional and educational impact of the BBC’s performing groups. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Lord) pointed out in relation to the licence fee, the BBC is required to deliver the remit set out in its charter, which includes a mission to serve
“all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain”.
We think that the BBC should be prioritising using its £3.8 billion annual licence fee income to deliver that remit, which includes culturally distinctive content.
The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate laments the £3.8 billion that the BBC gets. We think that it is a substantial sum. Given the cost of living challenges that our constituents face, we did not feel it right to increase the licence fee by more. There is also a balance to be struck in maintaining consent for the licence fee. We think there was a risk that if the licence fee had been increased substantially, it would have reduced the public support for the organisation.
I highlight again the fact that today we published the draft Media Bill, which is about underpinning our public service broadcasters in an increasingly competitive media environment. We hope that in doing so we will in turn underpin the future of British creativity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept and welcome those proposals, which are substantial.
Beyond the recent discussion of the BBC’s strategy for classical music, I want to recognise the wider support that the Government give to the arts. As has been highlighted, it is primarily delivered by an arm’s length body, Arts Council England. The policy area is within the remit of the arts and heritage Minister, Lord Parkinson, on whose behalf I speak today; I know that he has engaged extensively with hon. Members’ concerns, and I shall raise with him the suggestions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) about the potential Arts Council review and about transparency.
To read some of the public narrative around the Arts Council, one would think that funding or support for classical music had ceased altogether, so I would like to put some context around some of the concerns that have been raised. In November last year, ACE announced the outcome of its major investment programme, which is known as the national portfolio. It is the largest national portfolio so far: 990 organisations are receiving funding, compared with 814 between 2018 and 2022, and 663 between 2015 and 2018.
Overall, the investment programme is good news for orchestras and for classical music. Investment remains high in classical music and particularly in orchestral music organisations: 23 orchestral music organisations are being funded—an increase from 19 in the last round—at approximately £21 million per annum, which is £2 million more than in the previous year.
Those statistics do not include some of the largest and best-funded organisations, including the Southbank Centre, which are not specifically focused on classical music but which play an important role in its success. Organisations including the Multi-Story Orchestra, Orchestras for All, Paraorchestra, the People’s Orchestra and Pegasus Opera are joining the national portfolio for the first time. We think that that will help to bring down barriers to classical music and celebrate the power that it can have in people’s lives, which several hon. Members have referred to this evening. We think that the new portfolio has particular strengths in supporting young people in classical music. It has new funding for Awards for Young Musicians and the National Children’s Orchestras of Great Britain. There is also an increase in funding for the National Youth Choirs of Great Britain and the National Youth Orchestra.
The Arts Council has been thinking about how to build a fairer, more diverse classical music sector, and has commissioned a study entitled “Creating a More Inclusive Classical Music” to help it to understand the workforce, examine talent pathways, and think about how we might improve inclusion. A great deal of work has been done, not least through the broadening of the national portfolio, but the Arts Council will produce an update on its plans in the coming months. Its support for classical music goes well beyond orchestras. Some recent Arts Council support through lottery money includes backing for the Schubert 200 project, which will see Die Schöne Müllerin, Winterreise and Schwanengesang—I apologise for my pronunciation; I am relying on GCSE German—performed in new arrangements using period instruments and animated with puppetry, and £50,000 for one of our leading professional chamber choirs, The Sixteen, to support its summer pilgrimage.
Concern has been expressed across the sector about the work of English National Opera and the outcome of the new portfolio. The Arts Council and ENO are working closely to reach an agreement on ENO’s future funding and business model. As I mentioned earlier, Lord Parkinson has met representatives of ENO and Members of Parliament to discuss this issue, the context being that the Arts Council made all its decisions independently of Government.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I think we will start with a time limit of six minutes, and see how we go from there. In the meantime, I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is, as always, a pleasure to follow the Shadow Secretary of State, although I could not help noticing that she seemed to spend longer making general political points about the Budget than actually addressing issues relating to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady says “So?” from a sedentary position, and she is perfectly entitled to do so—the Budget debate is a general debate during which Members can bring up topics relating to any subject, not just the one that is slated for the day—but I mention that because I think this is an area of Government activity in which the Government have an incredibly strong record over many years.
That is demonstrated by the fact that investors and businesses recognise the UK as a global hub—a leading centre in Europe and in the world. When we talk to tech investors working in hubs in Berlin or Barcelona or Tel Aviv, we hear that they regard London as the primary centre where they go to raise funds to grow and scale their businesses. As the Secretary of State said, we have the leading research institutions in the world: four of the world’s top 10 universities are based here. Our university clusters are driving innovation and growth in the sector, which is why we are so well regarded and respected. Our strategy for making the UK a world centre for tech and innovation is based on three key areas: driving growth in the economy, having a pro-competition strategy, and setting high standards.
When it comes to growth in the tech sector, we should look at investment not just in London and the south-east but across the UK, and at the way in which tech sectors have emerged and developed over the last decade. A good demonstration of that, as the shadow Secretary of State knows, is that we can jump on the Metro or the tram in Manchester and see the emergence of Salford Quays as one of Europe’s leading centres for creative industries and technology. When I was Chairman of the Select Committee, we visited Dundee. Dundee and Edinburgh are leading centres for the video games industry.
In Birmingham, within a stone’s throw of where the Birmingham hub for high-speed rail will be, we can see institutions such as Birmingham City University with its fantastic STEAMhouse centre for tech skills, where AI training courses are being delivered. That is over the road from the Greater Birmingham and Solihull Institute of Technology, a centre for advanced engineering, which is down the road from Fazeley Studios, which has become an important hub for the broadcasting and creative industries in Birmingham. Many of the buildings on those sites did not exist a decade ago, and the idea that this would be a major cluster for the tech sector and the broadcasting and creative industries was not something that people would have envisaged in 2010, but it is a reality today as a consequence of policies that have been put in place by this Government. That is why the Chancellor was right to recognise in the Budget the strategic significance of investment in research and development, and also in the strategic hubs and clusters of businesses that are so important for driving the sector.
The UK will be a leader in digital competition, and that is one of the reasons we need to support British businesses throughout their life cycle; not just in the R&D phase when they are growing, but when they seek to scale as well. If emerging businesses are to scale in tech marketplaces, we need to ensure that they can compete fairly alongside the tech giants whose services they rely on to reach their customers. Many app developers cannot reach their customers without using products and platforms designed by Meta. Most businesses require Amazon services either for cloud storage or for selling. Most businesses also require a good ranking on Google to reach their customers. They should be able to do so fairly. There are only two app store markets: Google and Apple. Those two monopolies exist alongside each other. Any developer needs to use those stores to reach customers, just as any customer needs to use them to access the products they want. It is important that customers and businesses are treated fairly, and the digital markets, competition and consumer Bill, which will come forward soon, will be vital to securing that.
Standards are one of the most important aspects of the UK’s leadership. One of the best examples of standards, certainly for AI, is the Online Safety Bill. It is world-leading legislation that will effectively cover the regulation of the AI-driven recommendation tools that drive the experience of social media. AI is an enabling technology. It draws on data to make recommendations and decisions on behalf of users to improve that user experience. However, like any other form of technology, it requires the right standards and safety regulations around it to ensure that it is delivering. New chat tools have been mentioned. AI-driven chat boxes are new in their technology, but the principles behind them are not new. We have also seen that with technologies such as autocomplete on Google, where online tools guess and make assumptions about what people want to see or what responses they want. We need to ensure that they are making sensible, reasonable recommendations and not directing people towards harmful content or hate speech, or driving people into isolated groups and communities.
There need to be standards that underpin the way that AI works and the recommendations it makes to users who engage with those tools. That is why the Government were right to recommend and support the creation of a UK AI sandbox, where companies can trial, and demonstrate trials of, new technologies before they are rolled out. This is common and standard in most other industries. The European Union is developing an AI sandbox, and it is right that we should do the same here. It is also right that we should build on the work of AI standards being developed at the Alan Turing Institute, to set a standards-based framework for the applications of AI in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We are in the middle of a debate, so I hope that it is a good one.
Tim Loughton
Given my references to children in care, I forgot, in my haste, to declare my interest as chairman of a safeguarding board.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That counts; fair enough. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record.