Point of Order

Alan Mak Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hansard will confirm that during questions to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology earlier today, the Secretary of State—who is in his place—said that no Conservative Ministers had met AstraZeneca representatives following the announcement of a £450 million investment to expand its Merseyside vaccine facility. The Secretary of State is wrong. Publicly available transparency data from the Treasury and the Secretary of State’s own Department confirm that meetings did take place between AstraZeneca and my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), the then Chancellor, and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). May I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what to do, and may I offer the Secretary of State the opportunity to apologise and correct the record for the House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for giving me notice of it. I trust that he notified the Secretary of State of his intention to raise it. Should the Secretary of State feel that the record needs to be corrected, there are processes whereby he may do so, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Alan Mak Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

The Conservatives want Britain to be a science and technology superpower, and that means fully unlocking all the benefits of data. As a country, we must make the appropriate use of data more widespread. That would cut red tape, make research easier, create new jobs, deliver economic growth and enable people to access public services more efficiently.

A data-enabled economy and society is good for everyone, which is why we introduced the groundbreaking Data Protection and Digital Information Bill before the last election and progressed it through all Commons stages, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) rightly said. We still believe in those reforms and call on the Government to build on them, but we also recognise the concerns around individual rights, privacy, AI and copyright that have been raised in relation to Labour’s Bill.

When the previous Government left office last July, we had turned Britain into one of the world’s leading tech economies. We were home to more tech unicorns than any other European country, and more than France and Germany combined. Britain had become the world’s third largest AI ecosystem, with pioneering start-ups creating new jobs and innovative products. We led the way on developing safe AI through the world’s first AI safety summit and AI Safety Institute.

Our original Bill complemented those achievements and would have accelerated Britain’s progress towards becoming a highly data-enabled economy and society. In particular, our proposals for a digital verification services framework are replicated in this Bill. It is also clear that this Bill has been informed by consultations carried out under the last Conservative Government on the governance of digital identities.

Similarly, putting the national underground asset register on a statutory footing is a Conservative idea, and we welcome its inclusion in this Bill. More than 700 different organisations dig holes to install and maintain underground assets every year. Expanding and standardising the digital map of pipes and cables will help local councils, utility providers and others to better co-ordinate their activities, hopefully reducing the 60,000 accidental damage incidents that occur every year. However, the security of the register must be of the highest possible standard, given that the information is highly sensitive. The amendments tabled on register security by Viscount Camrose and Lord Markham in the other place should be taken seriously by the Government.

While the asset register provisions will turn our aim of joined-up thinking into reality, this Labour Government’s approach to AI and copyright is a total failure, and no joined-up thinking has happened at all. Last December, the Government finally launched their consultation, just as the Christmas break started. Why did Labour wait six months when this area of policy moves so quickly, with AI firms, the creative industries and the public needing legal certainty and firm answers? When the consultation finally arrived, the creative industries sector was unanimous in describing Labour’s proposals as completely unfit for purpose. For the sector, Labour’s idea of imposing a requirement on creatives, such as journalists, songwriters and film makers, to proactively opt out of data mining is not the solution. Labour’s proposal could align the UK’s approach closely with the EU regime under the digital single market copyright directive, which has produced widespread uncertainty about what constitutes a valid reservation of rights.

Labour’s approach to copyright and AI is the ultimate test of its credibility on tech and creative industries issues, and it has failed—the entire sector knows it. Rather than solving a problem, Labour is the problem.

[Mr Frith]

I know the hon. Member fancies himself as a bit of a tech bro, but he should recognise that much of the anxiety in the creative industries sector is caused by the dither and delay of the Conservatives’ time in Government and their failure to grasp the issue. As ever, we on the Government Benches are doing the hard work.

[Alan Mak]

The last Conservative Government left Britain with a world-class creative industries sector. It is Labour’s dither and delay that is causing huge anxiety, as I will go on to say.

Rather than solving a problem, Labour is the problem. One way to resolve that is to accept the Conservative proposal, tabled in the other place, to develop international technical standards for watermarks, which the Secretary of State referred to. We welcome the agreement by the Minister in the other place to take that work forward, and both Houses look forward to the outcome with great interest.

As I have said, the creative industries sector is valuable. It is worth £124 billion to the UK economy and employs over 2.4 million people. They will all be damaged by Labour’s approach and they all deserve better, so why has an impact assessment not been published at the same time as the consultation? What has Labour got to hide?

[Pete Wishart]

I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, as I did during the debate on the creative industries a few weeks ago. During that debate, Members on the Conservative Benches gave the impression that they were for the opt-out solution that the Labour party is putting forward. Is he now telling us that he is against that and that he will support the creative industries in seeing off the challenge from generative AI?

[Alan Mak]

The creative industries sector is telling us that that solution is not fit for purpose. We will hold the Labour Government to account because the creative industries are extremely important.

Under the Conservatives, we became the second largest exporter of television programming and the fourth largest exporter of film, while also being home to world-class theatre, music, broadcasting and journalism.

[Peter Kyle]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alan Mak]

I make progress, but I will give way shortly.

On the Conservative Benches, we have many well-respected champions of the creative industries sector. I am especially looking forward to the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, who brings his insight as a former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, creative industries Minister and Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), the current Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, for her work and leadership on the issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), the shadow DCMS Minister, are both long-standing advocates for the creative industries. They have both engaged extensively with the creative industries on AI and copyright issues, and together we will continue to champion those industries in this House and beyond.

[Peter Kyle]

The hon. Gentleman did not answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the opt-out or not? He seemed to disagree with it, but then he described exactly the same process as we have in the consultation.

[Alan Mak]

The Secretary of State needs to listen to the creative industries sector. So far he has ignored that sector, issued a consultation late and given it no faith whatsoever. The timing of the consultation and the Bill is fully faulty, reflecting Labour’s entirely incoherent approach—[Interruption.] The Government’s consultation on AI and copyright is open for another two weeks and it will take them many months to respond to the views expressed. On top of that, more time will be needed for the Government to come to any sort of conclusion, and that is before the Chancellor and No. 10 panic, take control of the policy, edge out the Secretary of State and cause even more delay.

[Peter Kyle]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alan Mak]

I am not in government, so I will not give way until later—although if the Secretary of State wants to come to the Dispatch Box to explain why his consultation and review are late and why he has not given any certainty to the sector, I am happy to give way, but I do not think he wants to do that. Let us go back to the Bill—[Interruption.] Okay, I am happy to give way.

[Peter Kyle]

Well, we certainly did not take 14 years to do that, but will the hon. Gentleman answer this: does he agree with the opt-out system? Yes or no?

[Alan Mak]

The Secretary of State keeps asking me questions, but I am not in government. It is for him to answer. It is for him to bring forward a consultation and legislation, and to give certainty to the creative sector. There is no point asking me questions—I am not in government.

What I can tell the Secretary of State is that it is extremely unfortunate that this legislation is passing through Parliament now, while the consultation is still ongoing. Amendments are being tabled by Members from all parts of both Houses, leading to legislative positions being crystalised even though the consultation has not yet closed. If the Government really took seriously the views of the public, the tech sector, the creative industries and other stakeholders, they would not be following this approach or timetable. Therefore, we will table amendments calling on the Government to respond to their own consultation more quickly.

Labour’s consultation provides the worst of all worlds: it does not provide any legal certainty or allow the views of those who have responded to be taken seriously. However, Labour should take the views of parliamentarians seriously, including those of its own Back-Bench MPs, who have voiced concerns at the Government’s approach in this very House. Labour should also take seriously the views of those in the other place. The Secretary of State acknowledged that the Government have already been heavily defeated on several amendments, including the Conservative amendments tabled by Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge on sexually explicit deepfake images, which secured wide-ranging support. The Government were also defeated on Conservative amendments tabled by Lord Lucas and Lord Arbuthnot that recognise the importance of accurate data, particularly when it comes to gender and sex. Confusing biological sex and elective gender puts patient safety at risk.

The Bill is lengthy and we will continue to properly scrutinise it as it progresses through the House. Labour’s track record to date on science and technology issues is so bad it needs all the help it can get. In just eight months in office, the Labour Government have already committed eight acts of harm on science and technology issues. They have imposed a national insurance jobs tax, punishing tech workers and businesses; lost a £450 million investment from AstraZeneca, doing away hundreds of jobs; launched an AI plan with no new funding or delivery plan, which creates two new quangos and more red tape; cancelled the UK’s new exascale supercomputer, hampering our scientists while our competitors race ahead; skipped the international AI summit of world leaders, started by the Conservatives but ignored by this Labour Prime Minister; scrapped £500 million of funding for the AI research resource, which funds computer power for AI; abandoned Conservative plans for the national maths academy, harming the next generation of data scientists; and aligned Britain with the EU’s failing approach to AI and copyright.

Labour’s approach is analogue government in the digital age: slow, uninspiring and not good enough for Britain. Labour promised so much, but it has delivered only failure.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I can now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025. The Ayes were 320 and the Noes were 178, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

I know nothing. I shall continue with data adequacy.

We must be mindful of our data adequacy agreements with the EU and other partners, and I know that the Government are all too aware of that. By watering down protections, we risk undermining our international credibility and endangering agreements that are essential for British businesses, academic institutions, and cross-border collaboration. It is paramount that our reforms do not jeopardise those vital partnerships, and it is vital that, as we update UK data law, we protect our position as a leading, trusted partner for international data sharing. At a time when international waters look increasingly choppy, this is more important than ever.

There is a real opportunity for the Bill to go further and promote data trusts or data communities—where groups of individuals collectively manage their data for wider societal benefit, such as medical research or tackling climate change. The Bill could champion that approach, thereby boosting public interest innovation. Instead, it is largely silent on collective or community-driven data governance, and misses a crucial chance to build genuine public trust in how technology can help us all.

By going further on data trusts or data communities, we could further unlock economic growth, as is exemplified by open banking. Consumers and small business can use this, and smaller providers can grow and compete more effectively. Furthermore, considerations over access to data on energy consumption could help improve sustainability and drive down energy bills.

The Bill has come to us from the other place, and I commend the work that has taken place in the House of Lords in recent weeks to scrutinise and improve the legislation. There are several areas where the changes made in the other place will have the support of the Liberal Democrats. On AI and copyright, we have been very clear that the current Government proposals would fail creatives. The Conservative shadow Minister was not clear on his stance on the question of opt in or opt out, so the creative industry has been left unsure of whether the Conservatives will support it. I am happy to take an intervention from the shadow Minister if he wants to clarify his position.

[Alan Mak]

I said to the Minister, and I will say it again for the hon. Lady: it is for the Government to bring forward their proposal. Once the consultation closes, we will respond. That is the proper order in this House.

[Victoria Collins]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. As Liberal Democrats, we have been very clear on this, and we have listened to what the creative industry has said so far—

[Alan Mak]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Victoria Collins]

Let me finish my point and then I would be very happy to give way.

We are against the opt-out system, because we want to preserve the rights of copyright. It is easy for those creatives to opt in, whereas opting out is harder, especially for smaller businesses or creatives in their own right.

[Alan Mak]

I was going to say to the hon. Lady, half in jest and half in reality, that the Liberal Democrats will say whatever they need to say in any part of the country and on any issue. That is the reality.

AstraZeneca

Alan Mak Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

(Urgent Question):To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology if he will make a statement on AstraZeneca.

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

As the largest company listed on the London Stock Exchange, employing more than 10,000 people and investing about £2.5 billion every year in the UK, AstraZeneca is a close and valued partner to this Government and is critical to the UK’s thriving life sciences sector. We saw that in the covid-19 pandemic, when AstraZeneca partnered with the University of Oxford to create a safe and effective vaccine that was manufactured and distributed around the world, saving millions of lives.

This type of partnership for the prevention of illness is critical to achieving the Government’s ambition of reducing the burden on the NHS. AstraZeneca’s decision not to invest in Speke, Liverpool is therefore deeply disappointing and follows intensive work and collaboration between the Government and the company. This collaboration on Speke dates back to 2020 and led to an announcement at the spring Budget 2024 when AstraZeneca set out its intention to invest £450 million into its flu vaccine manufacturing facility. To secure that investment, the previous Chancellor provided assurance of His Majesty’s Government support, valued at around £90 million, subject to successful completion of due diligence. That support was based on His Majesty’s Government’s initial assessment of figures provided by the company.

Both the previous Government and this Government have always made clear that full due diligence would be required before a final Government offer could be confirmed. Since the spring Budget, AstraZeneca confirmed a significant change in the composition of its proposed investment, resulting in a smaller level of research and development being conducted in the UK. As the shadow Minister would expect, that change in AstraZeneca’s UK investment resulted in a corresponding change in Government support.

Our revised Government offer sought to ensure value for money for the taxpayer and followed due diligence of the investment put forward by AstraZeneca. We remain closely engaged with AstraZeneca as we develop our new industrial strategy, build a health system fit for the future and drive up economic growth. In the spring, the Government will release our industrial strategy, containing a comprehensive plan for growing the life sciences sector. That will build on the significant momentum generated by the plan for growth, including delivery of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, as well as the Budget announcement of the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund, the suite of inward investment announced at the international investment summit and the strategic partnerships announced with Oxford Nanopore and Eli Lilly.

[Alan Mak]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.

Just five days ago, in another speech about growth designed to divert attention from the total lack of growth caused by Labour’s high taxes and anti-business approach, the Chancellor specifically praised AstraZeneca: she knew that the last Conservative Government had successfully negotiated a deal for Britain’s biggest public company to invest £450 million into Britain’s economy.

Under the Conservative deal, AstraZeneca would have expanded its flu vaccine factory on Merseyside, creating new jobs, improving the UK’s pandemic preparedness and sending a clear message to the world that Britain’s life sciences sector is open for business. Instead, Labour has cut the funding that we agreed and has imposed a national insurance jobs tax. That has destroyed the business case for expanding the factory and the deal is now off. Will the Minister explain why the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology failed to stand up to the Chancellor when she cut his funding, destroying the deal and handing high-quality jobs and investment to our competitors?

In the past 12 months, AstraZeneca has committed to investing more than £1 billion in Singapore, nearly £3 billion in the US and more than £450 million in Canada. It could have invested £450 million in our country, too, so what are the Government doing to bring back the jobs and investment that they have just turned away?

By last July, all that was required was for Labour to confirm that it would proceed with our deal. AstraZeneca wrote to the Chancellor and the Science Secretary on 9 July, but received no reply. It wrote to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade in early July too, but he fobbed it off. The company did not receive its answer until last October. By then, it was too late to deliver the project and now the deal is dead. Will the Minister and the Science Secretary write to the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah), offering to appear before her Committee to explain what went wrong and how such failures can be avoided in the future?

Delivering this deal secured by the Conservatives was a big test of Labour’s economic credibility, and it has failed. In the same week that it talked about growth, it has botched a deal that was vital to our economy. Labour promised growth, but delivered failure and let Britain down again.

[Chris Bryant]

What utter nonsense. We endured 14 years of growth that even the shadow Minister’s own Back Benchers used to describe as anaemic and feeble. Average growth under Tory Governments is 1.2%; average growth under Labour Governments is 2.4%. We are far more likely to secure growth in the British economy under a Labour Government.

The shadow Minister simply did not listen to what I had to say. The Conservatives sat on this so-called deal with AstraZeneca for four years. The process started in 2020, and it is interesting what was announced to the House and what was actually announced in the paperwork. In the House, the then Chancellor said that AstraZeneca had announced plans to invest to

“fund the building of a vaccine manufacturing hub in Speke in Liverpool.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 845.]

He did not make any mention in the Chamber of the money that was needed from his Department to be able to pay for it. The paperwork that attended that announcement stated:

“AstraZeneca’s investment decision is contingent upon mutual agreement with the UK Government and third parties, and successful completion of regulatory processes.”

That was absolutely typical of the previous Government: they thought that when they had announced something it had come to pass, but due diligence is needed to ensure the best possible financial advantage for the British taxpayer.

We have seen clearly that AstraZeneca’s original intention last year was to deliver £150 million-worth of R&D, but then it decided to cut that to something like £90 million-worth. That was its decision, based on its own investment decisions, and we as a Government had to assess whether £90 million from the UK—as supposedly promised by the previous Chancellor—was the right amount of money to put into the pot, or whether it was better to offer slightly less. Unfortunately, at the end of that process AstraZeneca decided that it would not proceed.

Let me make it absolutely clear to the hon. Member that this is the best country in the world in which to invest in the private sector. Some £63 billion of investment was secured at the growth summit last year, and £14 billion—[Interruption.]

Artificial Intelligence Opportunities Action Plan

Alan Mak Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Let me begin by thanking Matt Clifford for his work. Having known Matt for many years, I am grateful for his long-standing contribution to the tech sector, including with the last Conservative Government.

It was that last Conservative Government who identified the opportunities of AI early, and we acted decisively. We kept Britain out of the EU’s anti-growth regulatory regime, enabling our tech sector to flourish. In contrast, the Secretary of State is on record praising the EU’s approach to AI, which even President Macron rejected. Will the Secretary rule out regulatory alignment with the EU on AI issues? We also launched the incubator for AI, which led on groundbreaking work to improve productivity, and the gov.uk chatbot, both of which were led by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). Can the Secretary of State guarantee the future of both projects under this Government?

We also provided £500 million for AI compute, because our AI sector requires cutting-edge computing power, as well as more energy to power data centres. Labour’s energy policy is taking our country to the brink of blackouts. Instead of just launching another quango—the AI energy council—can the Secretary of State assure the House that the AI sector will have reliable access to all the energy it needs? It was a Conservative Government who organised the world’s first AI safety summit and delivered the world’s third largest AI market, fostering an environment in which Sir Demis Hassabis won the Nobel prize last year. Even the Prime Minister admitted today that when it comes to AI, Britain starts with a position of strength.

The bad news is that Labour is already squandering the world-leading AI position that we built up for Britain. Last July, one of Labour’s first actions on entering government was to cut £1.3 billion of funding for Britain’s first exascale supercomputer and the AI research resource—both of which Matt Clifford’s report says deserve support. Why did the Secretary of State not stand up to the Chancellor when she cut the funding last July? Anyone reading the plan will see that it has been fully drenched in Labour gobbledegook, peppered with references to “missions”, “mission delivery boards”, “clusters”, “sector champions” and even “local trusted intermediaries”. Its plan confirms what everyone suspected all along: Labour prefers technocratic jargon over the actual tech sector.

The plan was ready last September and due to be published last November. Why did Labour delay publication again and again, and finally choose a day when it needed to divert attention away from the beleaguered Chancellor? What is not in the plan is even more telling than what is. First, there is nothing to correct the huge damage that Labour has already inflicted on the AI sector through the Chancellor’s national insurance jobs tax, which punishes every tech worker by £900 per person per year. Will the Secretary of State apologise today for making our tech workers take a wage cut and for reducing their living standards?

Labour’s response is full of aspirational dates for targets to be met, but there are no specific plans setting out how it will achieve the targets or pay for them—so much for the Chancellor’s iron grip on the public finances. Given that there is no new funding, will the Secretary of State give a precise date for publishing his spending plans, and confirm what funding will be cut from existing projects to pay for this plan’s 50 new commitments? Why have the Government created two more AI quangos today? The Prime Minister has announced or created a quango almost every week since coming to office. Today, it is clearly the tech sector’s turn. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House and the country that his two new AI quangos will not just tie up our tech sector in more red tape?

Last week, the Chancellor fled the country. As she headed east, our economy went south. Labour promised growth but it has delivered failure. It has published an underwhelming plan three months late. It has punished our tech workers with the national insurance jobs tax. It has saddled our tech sector with red tape and more quangos, and it aligns itself with the EU when everybody else is saying no. Labour’s delayed AI plan is analogue Government in the digital age: slow, uninspiring and not good enough for Britain. Our country deserves the best, but Labour has let Britain down again.

[Peter Kyle]

I am kind of grateful for the hon. Member’s comments, but I feel a bit sorry for him. He praised Matt Clifford and his independent report, because Matt Clifford is an astonishing person—as a House we should all give credit to somebody who has been so successful in the tech sector out there in the real economy, while giving up so much time for public service. I am grateful for him. But the hon. Member then went on to talk about his report as if it is Labour’s report, “full of gobbledegook”. It was not Labour’s report but Matt Clifford’s report. If the hon. Member respected Matt Clifford, he would not be attacking the very report that he authored. I did not author it; I just looked at the recommendations, saw the logic and the scale of the ambition in it and said yes. We share that sense of ambition and we will deliver it, too.

If the hon. Member cared so much about compute and the exascale computer, his Government would have done something fundamental to deliver it. They would have allocated the money. If they are standing up in public and saying that they will deliver something, it is pretty basic stuff to allocate the resources to deliver it. That project never existed, because the money never existed. It was a fraud committed on the scientific community of our country—smoke and mirrors from the outset. All I did was be honest with the public about the scale of the deceit inflicted on them. I corrected a wrong from the previous Administration.

Today, we have a plan. The task set for Matt Clifford was not to look at what Government—particularly the previous Government—are capable of and then to try to design a programme limited by the scale of their chaotic abilities. Instead, the Prime Minister and I asked Matt Clifford to look at our country’s potential if we get everything right on the digital infrastructure and opportunities of the future, and that is what his plan has done. There are things this Government need to do differently in order to realise the potential out there in our country, and that is what we have set about doing today by accepting all 50 recommendations.

When they were in office, the Conservatives did down our country; now, in opposition, they do nothing but talk it down. That is a shame.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Mak Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

“Companies like ours will be less incentivised to grow”.

That is the conclusion of Paul Taylor, founder of British tech unicorn Thought Machine, which employs more than 500 people. Britain is now missing out on new jobs and investment as a direct result of Labour’s national insurance jobs tax. When the Chancellor started punishing our tech sector, the Secretary of State failed to stand up to her. Why?

[Peter Kyle]

We have put the public finances on a solid footing. Our economy is now stable in a way that has not been the case for 14 years. The Conservatives want all the benefits of the last Budget without saying how they will pay for any of it. Until they do, they will not be taken seriously by anyone, including the business that the hon. Gentleman referenced.

[Alan Mak]

The truth is that the Labour Government are failing our tech workers, because they do not care about our tech sector. Last September, Paul said that he was very keen to list Thought Machine in London instead of New York, and one of his preconditions before listing is being able to grow the business as much as possible. Why did the Secretary of State allow the Chancellor to make growth harder for Britain’s tech sector at the Budget?

[Peter Kyle]

I think the hon. Gentleman missed the investment summit that the Government held just before Christmas, at which a record £60 billion was invested into this country, £24 billion of which was AI-related. That is almost as much going directly into AI as was committed in total at the previous Government’s investment summit. This Government are unlocking investment; the previous Administration wrecked our economy and public services, and failed to secure faith in our economy for foreign companies to invest in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Mak Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

On the Opposition Benches we are proud that it was the last Conservative Government who created the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. I am glad that Labour is following our agenda, and I look forward to my exchanges with the Secretary of State.

Under the last Conservative Government, Britain was home to more billion dollar tech start-ups than France and Germany combined, but last month an industry survey found that nearly 90% of tech founders would consider leaving Britain if Labour raised taxes on tech businesses. Yesterday, Labour U-turned on policy in Scotland, so today will the Secretary of State commit to reversing Labour’s jobs tax, which damages tech businesses across the entire country?

[Peter Kyle]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post. We worked together on the all-party parliamentary group on the fourth industrial revolution, which he chaired, and I look forward to having a constructive relationship going forward.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the last Government. Given the way the Conservatives are going, that will have been their last Government. To be honest, the circumstances that businesses, large and small, operating in the tech landscape have asked for are a smooth regulatory process—we have already delivered regulatory reform; reform to planning—we have delivered reform to the planning system; a stable financial settlement—we have delivered that with a Budget for—

[Alan Mak]

I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words, but he has punished labour: figures from his own Department show that workers will be losing out by nearly £800 each per year as a result of Labour’s Budget. Will he stand up to the Chancellor and oppose any further tax rises on Britain’s hard-working tech sector?

[Peter Kyle]

The Budget gave a pay rise to working people in this country and set the conditions for a stable economy, fixing the black hole left in our economy by the mismanagement of the last Government.