Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Alan Mak and Peter Kyle

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alan Mak and Peter Kyle

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

The Conservatives secured a £450 million investment from AstraZeneca to expand its Merseyside vaccine factory. When the Chancellor wrecked the deal, AstraZeneca tried to save it by increasing that investment to over £500 million. Why did Labour still walk away, handing jobs and investment to our competitors?

[Peter Kyle]

The deal that the hon. Gentleman says the Conservatives secured was announced in March. The general election was in July. Where was the deal, the funding or the written agreement? There was nothing.

[Alan Mak]

When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. AstraZeneca is investing more than £4 billion in Singapore, the US and Canada. It could have invested in our country too. What is Labour doing to bring back the deal that it destroyed?

Artificial Intelligence Opportunities Action Plan

Debate between Alan Mak and Peter Kyle

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

Debate between Alan Mak and Peter Kyle

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[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

Debate between Alan Mak and Peter Kyle

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Alan Mak and Peter Kyle

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, Mrs Main, to serve under your chairmanship. I welcome the Bill and will refer to clause 1, as well as to other provisions.

Charities play a vital role in civil society and local communities across Britain. They care for the sick, feed the hungry, raise money for veterans and protect the natural and built environment. They rely on generous public support and confidence in order to continue their vital work. Deliberate abuse of charities is relatively small, given the size of sector. However, it needs to be tackled robustly to protect public trust and confidence.

The Bill, particularly clause 1, would equip the independent regulator, the Charity Commission, with the tools that it needs to tackle more effectively the types of abuse it faces. That in turn should protect charitable donations and reassure the giving public that charities are well regulated. Clause 1 inserts into the Charities Act 2011 new section 75A, which provides the Commission with a power to issue an official warning to a charity or a charity trustee. That warning may be given where there is a breach of trust or duty by a charity or trustee, or other misconduct or mismanagement in the charity. Breach of duty can also include non-compliance with a commission order or direction. That warning system is similar to powers vested in other regulators, but it is a more reasonable and proportionate way to deal with breaches of the 2011 Act and fiduciary duties or other mismanagement episodes, particularly where the risks and impacts on charitable assets and services are relatively low.

Before I had the privilege of entering this House, I was fortunate to be a trustee of a small but successful children’s charity working across the UK. My experience of working with donors, funders and beneficiaries suggests that the new powers in clause 1 will be welcomed by all those in believe in the proper governance and oversight of charities by bolstering public confidence in charities.

The new power is a more proportionate use of the Charity Commission’s powers, and a better alternative to a number of other remedial powers such as suspension or removal of trustees, or restitution action against trustees. An example of where the power might be used is where a charity makes unauthorised payments, for example, to a connected company or for the benefit of a particular trustee. In such a case, the size of the sums involved may mean that it is disproportionate to take stronger action but the Commission could issue an official warning on future conduct, as stipulated under clause 1.

Another case might be where the charity’s governing documents have been breached. For example, there has been a failure to call elections or annual general meetings, which would compromise the proper functioning of the charity and public faith in the charitable sector. The powers in clause 1 would be a proportionate and effective means of ameliorating that situation.

[Peter Kyle]

It is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. Like the hon. Member for Havant, I have served on charity boards. In fact, I was involved in founding two charities and have seen them grow and thrive. My role included the challenge of recruiting trustees to two charity boards.

I have seen the charitable sector from many different perspectives, including working for almost six years for an umbrella organisation in the sector. I can see from different perspectives the challenges but also the opportunities that the voluntary sector provides to society. It is embedded fully in civil society, and increasingly delivers public services, which are often integrated in the welfare state. That is a fantastic and growing part of our voluntary sector, and we should be proud of it.

The delivery of public services is an aspect of the voluntary sector that does indeed need greater regulation and scrutiny. The public needs to know, since the sector is funded by taxpayers’ money, that it is scrutinised accordingly. I therefore welcome many aspects of the Bill.