Creative Industries
Allison Gardner Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I rise not just as a member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee or as co-chair of the APPG on artificial intelligence, but as an academic with first-hand experience of building AI models. I will try to make a case—go with me on this one—that protecting our creative industry and the high-quality output it produces is vital not just to our vibrant creative sector, but to our rapidly evolving AI sector.
Back in the mists of time, when I was building a model for my PhD, I resisted the temptation to build a large dataset from any relevant data I could find. Instead, I chose to produce a smaller, high-quality dataset, which was risky, as it might not have been enough to create a reliable model and I might not have passed my PhD. My risk paid off. My model worked better than expected and, ever since, I have adhered to the principle that it is the quality of our data, not its quantity, that matters.
To mangle a metaphor, some say that data is the new oil or gold. Taking that metaphor forward, let us do a thought experiment. Let us say that the UK discovered vast reserves of gold, making us the second biggest provider globally. What should we do? Would we look at gold-hungry organisations and give them the gold for free, in the hope that they will invest in the UK? I should hope not.
By some estimates, the UK creative industry is the second largest globally. It is our gold. Should we give away this valuable asset for free? I hope not, for the sake of our creatives, but also for our new AI industry, in which this Government are rightly investing. The unlicensed and illegal use of copyrighted content for generative AI development has been equated by some with a form of theft. Not only is it unfair to make such acquisition legal via an opt-out system, but it risks creating a future of fool’s gold data as our creative industry loses control of its work and moves elsewhere, or simply gives up.
High-quality data is essential for the success of generative AI, but, as with gold—to overkill the metaphor—its reserves may be finite. Researchers predict that at the current rate, generative AI developers will have used all the publicly available stock of human-created text data between 2026 and 2032. In other words, we could run out next year. This means that, with limited new high-quality data, innovation and AI growth will be hindered, inviting model collapse.
Model collapse happens when generative AI models start training on their own lower-quality data. This is the fool’s gold of AI. If we wish to be competitive, both in the creative and AI industries, we as a country need to set ourselves above our competitors, not below them. We do this not by giving away our most valuable assets for free, but by protecting them so that we can keep generating more and more new high-quality data.
Generative AI developers, like all AI developers, are extremely data-hungry and keen to mine, mine, mine. If all we have left to offer them is fool’s gold—if our world-class British artists have to look elsewhere to make a living—the AI developers will likewise look elsewhere. Protecting our creative industry by not allowing the free use of data for model training purposes is therefore the right thing to do not only for our creative industry, but for our AI industry.
I therefore ask the Government to consider a longer-term view and retain the UK’s current copyright framework, to place the onus on generative AI developers to seek a licence for our creatives’ data—with a possible caveat for academic research—and to expand it to cover all generative AI models marketed in the UK. In conjunction, we must require meaningful transparency on data usage in a form that is accessible to artists and regulators. That would allow for enforceable regulation and enable the actual data creators, our creatives, to seek redress. I resist, as I always do, claims that that would inhibit innovation and growth. Based on my experience as a researcher and AI ethicist, I reject the notion that regulation inhibits innovation. It simply does not. Transparency of model development and data sources plus enforceable regulations are vital to encourage high standards and good quality AI.
By retaining our copyright framework and pioneering a licensing approach, we would guarantee that rights holders have control over their own creative output. Such an approach would give confidence to our creatives, allowing them to pursue sustainable, well-paid and productive careers, and provide enjoyment to us all, income and growth for the country and the high-quality output that is so valuable to generative AI developers. By taking that approach, we will remain what we are today—the gold standard of the creative industries—and that will enable us to rise up as the gold standard for AI development.
Gareth Snell
The Minister has stolen my thunder! As always, he has pre-empted what I was going to say. I was going to say that Stoke-on-Trent is a city that is steeped in history, but fizzing for the future of creativity. We are home to nine Arts Council England national portfolio organisations; we have a burgeoning CreaTech cluster in the Spode building; and we have some of the best performances of theatre-in-the-round at the New Vic theatre, which although not in Stoke-on-Trent is so close to the border it might as well be.
I highlight these points not for the flippant response I should have pre-empted from the Minister, but because all too often when we think about places where creativity happens and where arts and culture thrive, we do not think about places such as Stoke-on-Trent or other historical industrial cities. All too often, those places are written up as wastelands, with derelict buildings shown in articles in The Guardian, rather than the focus being on the things that make them special and strong: our heritage and our future.
Stoke-on-Trent is the only city in the UK that has world craft city status for our industrial history in the potteries. Some of the great creatives of our past are intrinsically linked to Stoke-on-Trent: Wedgwood, Spode, William Moorcroft, Clarice Cliff and Susie Cooper. They are people who had creativity not only in their artistry, but in their industry. They pioneered new methods of working so that we could have the finest bone china, and came up with new techniques for design; the illustrations on the plates, cups and tiles that we all enjoy were at the cutting edge of new methods, technologies, pigments and materials. The creativity that they drew upon as part of their industrial heritage remains, and we have the same skills and burning ambition to demonstrate who we are and what we do in Stoke-on-Trent today.
Some 4,000 jobs in Stoke-on-Trent are linked directly to the creative sector; if the supply chain is included, it would easily be two or three times that number. Some 638 artists and artist organisations are recognised by the Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire Cultural Education Partnership. In 2019, there were 5.5 million tourist visits to Stoke-on-Trent—a narrative that we do not often hear from those who seek to denigrate the city I am proud to call home and represent in this place. Sadly, some of that snobbish approach to my city comes from our nearest neighbours, who seek to use the challenges that our city faces for their own short-term political gain. I doubt that will stop any time soon. However, we are home to “The Great Pottery Throw Down”, which is on Channel 4 on Sunday evenings; Keith Brymer Jones and the team have made pottery glamorous Sunday night TV viewing. It demonstrates that the history of who we are is still very much part of the society and city that we want to be.
Dr Gardner
I recently visited the impressive and very funky 1882 ceramics firm based in the World of Wedgwood in my Stoke-on-Trent South constituency, home of “The Great Pottery Throw Down”. The firm impressed upon me its challenges in attracting young apprentices, risking the loss of important creative heritage skills. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must remember the value of pottery and sculpture in our education curriculum review to protect this vibrant industry?
Gareth Snell
I agree with my hon. Friend. Our city has children in school who are unaware of our cultural heritage, which is their cultural heritage, and who do not play with clay in the way they should. We have schools that decommissioned their kilns, despite the fact that the children’s parents and grandparents would have trained in those schools, gone into the industry and made good lives for themselves from honest, hard work in what was essentially one of the country’s earliest creative industries.
My hon. Friend is also right about the pipeline of talent. The big creative companies in Stoke-on-Trent tell me that the University of Staffordshire is generating some of the highest quality, most talented graduates in the country. When it comes to computer games, technical productions and animations, the courses at the University of Staffordshire are rated as some of the best, if not the best, in the country. Only this week, three of the big digital creative bodies in Stoke-on-Trent—i-Creation, Lesniak Swann and VCCP—announced their new summer internship. That programme lines young graduates up with professionals working in the creative industry, and shows them what their job and career could be—a job and a career that has value, pride and potential economic benefits for my city, because of the nature of the work that we can bring in.
The Minister will know about the litany of success stories in our city from a Westminster Hall debate that he kindly responded to a few weeks ago. I will not bore the House by repeating that list this evening. Let me simply say that when the Government consider the future of the creative industries and where the talent pool should be—I know that the Minister agrees, so I hope that he reiterates it when he winds up—we should bear in mind that if we can make it work in places such as Stoke-on-Trent, we can make it work anywhere. Young people in my city who enjoy creative education and want to go on to do wonderful things, whether in music, drama, dance, tech or ceramics and pottery, deserve the same opportunities as a child from London or any metropolitan city in the north of England. I hope that, as the new Government foster a new partnership with places such as Stoke-on-Trent, the creative industries can be central to it, so that the names we speak of in 20 or 30 years’ time, when we undoubtedly have this debate again, will be the names of those young people.
Artificial Intelligence Opportunities Action Plan
Allison Gardner Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her constructive comments. She mentions trust. Trust is incredibly important in this whole agenda. We have seen too many times in the past where a fearful public have failed to fully grasp the potential for innovation coming out of the scientific community in this country. We are not going to make that mistake. We understand from the outset that to take the public with us we must inspire confidence. We must have safety assured from the outset and that is a commitment I make today. If people are not safe and protected, and do not feel safe, they will not explore confidently all the potential that AI and the digital world presents to them, their families, their communities, their businesses and us as a country. We must ensure that they do so.
On intellectual property, a consultation is under way. The hon. Lady, along with the rest of the public and all interested parties, are very welcome to take part—indeed, I implore them to do so.
Growth zones present the most remarkable opportunity for parts of our country. We want to ensure not just that every part of the country benefits, but that those parts of the country that experienced deindustrialisation and suffered at the hands of the Conservative Government over 14 years of stagnation, chaos and the poor strategic planning of our economy, benefit the most. In the coming weeks we will announce the process by which we will select the future AI growth zones. I implore areas, regions and parts of our country that are interested to start looking at the Government’s direction of travel to see whether they can play a part, and whether they can get involved and start delivering AI growth zones in their area. There are parts of the country that will really benefit. We want to ensure that we have a set of local authorities and areas that are eager to take advantage of it.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Cities like Stoke-on-Trent, left behind by the previous Conservative Government, could significantly benefit from targeted AI investment. AI growth zones are one such opportunity. We have a great site in Stoke-on-Trent and energy innovations. Will the Secretary of State outline plans for using AI to drive investment towards the CreaTech hub that is Stoke-on-Trent?
Peter Kyle
The people of Stoke-on-Trent are extremely lucky to have such a strong advocate, not just for the infrastructure of the future but for the skills and the talent that exists across Stoke-on-Trent. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are eagerly awaiting any interest that Stoke-on-Trent shows in the growth zone area and in all the other announcements that came out in the plan today. We will not do “to” communities; we will partner “with” communities, areas and the nations of the United Kingdom to ensure that everyone benefits. Those who are hungry to embrace the agenda will have an active partner in my Department and this Government.
Technology in Public Services
Allison Gardner Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches tonight. I, too, am honoured to make my maiden speech during this debate on the use of technology in public services, coming as I have from my previous role in the NHS AI and digital regulations service.
Mine is a new constituency, with the majority of the old Stoke-on-Trent South and the northern part of the Stone constituencies within its boundaries. The new Stoke-on-Trent South is hence a diverse area, combining a great industrial heritage of mining and ceramics with the agricultural and rural communities of Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire. Our urban area centres around one of the six Staffordshire pottery towns of Longton, which proudly boasts the largest number of our iconic bottle ovens, including those of the Gladstone Pottery Museum, where “The Great Pottery Throw Down” was filmed. Naturally, ceramics and tableware are a major part of our history and culture. Indeed, you can spot a Stokie anywhere in the world, for they will be turning over any cup or plate to see whether it comes from Stoke-on-Trent—you know it! I invite Members present to join the “turnover club” and investigate the provenance of pottery and china right here in the Palace of Westminster.
Of course, our industrial strength extends beyond ceramics and includes innovative firms such as Goodwin, with high-tech mechanical and refractory engineering divisions, which I had the pleasure of speaking to last week. Goodwin, along with other excellent businesses, including Trentham’s Minuteman Press, offers dozens of high-skilled apprenticeships, giving our workers award-winning opportunities to develop key skills for the future. Indeed, within north Staffordshire we have Keele and Staffordshire Universities, a medical and veterinary school, and excellent further education colleges offering great courses and apprenticeships.
The rural part of the constituency includes Blythe Bridge and Barlaston, and extends to Tean, Swynnerton, Yarnfield and Oulton, with many villages in between. It is where my partner Jim’s family have lived and run their sawmills for generations. Walk anywhere in our countryside and you will see public footpath signposts made by Jim himself. History, land, family and a love for our north Staffordshire home—I am going to get emotional—are embodied in those signs.
Indulge me too as I mention my daughters, Chrissie and Lucy, and my sister Siobhan, and thank them, alongside Jim and his children, William and Sophie, for putting up with me in my passion to build a better future for everyone’s children in my constituency. Thanks are also due to the great team that supported me throughout.
With this new combined constituency, I must acknowledge the hard work of the two former Conservative Members, Jack Brereton and Bill Cash. Jack was MP for Stoke-on-Trent South from 2017. I commend him for his work in tackling the scourge of monkey dust, and for his ambitions for better transport across Stoke and north Staffordshire. I commit to continuing that important work, and welcome the moves being made by this Government to rebuild our transport services to be run for the people, benefiting our economy, opportunity and the environment. Bill Cash has had a parliamentary career spanning 40 years. Indeed, Bill was an MP before Jack was born. I wish Bill well in his retirement.
In Stoke-on-Trent South, Jack was preceded by the Labour MPs Rob Flello and George Stevenson. I thank George for his no-nonsense advice and support. I should also mention another MP called Jack: Jack Ashley, a Labour MP who I have the honour of being compared to. This is a formidable challenge to meet. Jack was elected in 1966, the year I was born and the year that we won the world cup, in which the great Stoke City player Gordon Banks played a key role. His statue stands proudly outside the bet365 stadium in my constituency. So 1966 was a good year all round, by my reckoning, as we can now add me to its accomplishments as the first female MP for Stoke-on-Trent South.
Jack Ashley became profoundly deaf while he was an MP and was reportedly the first deaf Member of any elected assembly. Although he initially thought that he would need to resign, he turned to technology, using a Palantype transcription system. Jack’s visit to the BBC’s Ceefax department even inspired a project to develop a computer program to convert stenographic outputs to TV subtitles. As a hard-of-hearing MP who wears AI-enabled hearing aids, it is fitting that I remember Jack Ashley in today’s debate.
It is the norm for MPs to claim in their maiden speech that their constituency is the most beautiful. I could, of course, argue that, describing our quintessential countryside, pretty villages and farms, the canals and of course the River Trent, or I could talk of the beauty I find in our industrial landscape—I am going to get emotional again.
However, I want to talk about the people, because it is in their spirit, their friendliness and their sense of community that true beauty lies—in the heart of the people. From Tracey, who runs Meir Watch, and Arfan, who owns Sizzlers pizzas, coming together to feed and clothe children in need, with no expectation of thanks or profit; to the fantastic PEGiS—the Parent Engagement Group in Stoke—who I had the pleasure to meet at their summer picnic, working to support SEND families, with no-nonsense women such as Michelle and Keeley cracking on and getting stuff sorted; or Jason, passionately fighting to clean up our waterways; Craig, battling grief from the loss of a friend to campaign for safer roads; and the village who reached out to me, worried about asylum seekers, not because they had given in to the politics of division and hate, but because they were worried that the children were not getting any schooling. When I attended their summer fête, they had reached out and invited the refugees to come and join in the fun—and come they did.
This is the heart of the people of my constituency, reaching out and caring for those in need without judgment, with friendly, no-nonsense, practical support, and believing in the power of community action. This is true beauty. I pledge to all the people in my constituency that I carry them in my heart and mind at all times. I am acutely aware of the trust they have placed in me. I will get some things wrong, no doubt, but know this: I will always do my best. I will work hard, I will always hold the vision of a better life for them and I will always fight for the place that is my home.
Before I turn back to the topic of this debate, technology in our public services, I will take one more little trip into history, if I may. In Barlaston we have the World of Wedgwood, where I like to treat myself to a genteel cream tea, drinking out of Wedgwood china and pretending I am posh. I heartily recommend visiting. The founder, Josiah Wedgwood, was a great innovator and entrepreneur who invented creamware and green glaze, to name just two. He understood that science—in his case, chemistry—practically applied in an industrial context turbocharged innovation and development. He was also a master marketeer, apparently, pioneering money-back guarantees, illustrated catalogues and buy one, get one free. If he were alive today, we can only imagine what his innovative and entrepreneurial spirit would make of this digital world.
Josiah was a polymath, and that is something worth noting. It is important that we recognise that in considering technological innovation, we must take a multidisciplinary approach, with the full participation of those who will implement, use, govern and be impacted by the technology day to day. Technology in the public services offers huge potential, but there are also risks if it is not properly developed and deployed, as we have seen with biased risk assessment models for child welfare and benefit fraud models.
In my previous career with the NHS, I saw the great potential that diagnostic technologies can offer, particularly in radiology, which I saw in action when I visited the radiology department at the Royal Stoke, for example. Such technologies can be transformative, streamlining pathways and saving hours of work, but they do not and should not replace human oversight. Proper governance and regulation are required, and always with a “safety first” principle. It must be transparent and accountable. I hope we get it right; in fact, we must. In delivering transformative change in our public services, we must develop the governance and regulation that will maximise the benefits and mitigate the risks—not just for the people of my constituency or the country, but because by moving forward to a bright new age with modern and innovative public services, as they once were and will be again, we can be an example to the world.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Chris Coghlan to make his maiden speech.