Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I am not making an criticism of any individual Member of the House of Lords. I listened to the debate, and it was clear that people felt passionately and were arguing entirely in good faith. I fully understand that. As I have said, however, this a Bill that was not intended to include elements relating to AI and copyright. In the last Parliament it was supported by the Conservative party and by us on the Opposition Benches, and was referred to by both sides during our general election campaigns. Neither of us said that we were going to include anything about copyright in the Bill, but that is what is now holding up Royal Assent. There are economic benefits that would flow from the Bill, but they will of course be delayed if we further delay Royal Assent.

Let me end by saying that, as I think I have said several times, I fully understand the concerns expressed by people in the creative industries about artificial intelligence. Many use it already, but they are understandably concerned about where it will go, and they fear for their jobs. It is true that, for many, the strikes in the US had an even more cataclysmic effect on their careers, but I would just add one corrective to those fears. There is a moment at the end of “The Winter’s Tale” when Paulina takes Leontes to see a statue of his wife, who he thinks died of grief when he falsely accused of her adultery many years earlier. We all know when we watch it in the theatre that the statue is actually the actress playing Hermione; it is not a statue at all. Yet the moment when Leontes touches the statue and says, “O, she’s warm!”, still shocks us and brings tears to our eyes. Why? Because it is human to human. Yes, of course it is artifice laid upon artifice, but it is humanity face to face that really moves us. The Government have heard the concerns expressed by this House and the other place, and we have set out our plans to address them. I believe the Bill must be allowed to run its course.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Lords amendment 49D engages Commons financial privilege. If Lords amendment 49D is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Before Clause 138

Requirement to make provision in relation to transparency of copyrighted works used in relation to AI models

2.2 pm

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49D.

I want to start by putting on record something that I should perhaps have said a bit more about in this place. I cherish the UK creative industries—their immense contribution to our national and personal lives; their embodiment of the best of human creativity—and I appreciate the sincerity of their concerns about the future. I want to express my genuine gratitude to the whole of the creative sector, from national treasures such as Sir Ian McKellen, Kate Bush and, yes, Sir Elton John, whose performances enrich our lives—having seen all of them perform live, I can say how much that has personally enriched my life—to local artists such as Pauly the painter, whose paintings of Hove enrich my ministerial office in Whitehall. However, this is not a competition about who loves the sector most; it is an argument about how best to champion the interests of creatives, large and small, and to protect and promote them into the future.

The purpose of the Data (Use and Access) Bill is to better harness data for economic growth, to improve public services and to support modern digital government, and I acknowledge the agreements reached in the other place on scientific research and sex data to that end. The Bill before us today is one step closer to completion, and I am grateful to Minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch for her work on these important issues. I am sure the House will unite in wishing her a happy birthday today—it is a significant birthday, but I will not do her the discourtesy of mentioning which one.

This Bill was never intended to be about artificial intelligence, intellectual property and copyright. However, the other place has yet again suggested that there be an amendment on this issue, despite hon. Members of this elected House having already removed a similar amendment twice before. Madam Deputy Speaker, I also note your decision that the amendment from the other place still conflicts with the financial privileges of this place. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms has stated repeatedly, we absolutely recognise that a workable solution on transparency is a key part of tackling this issue, but we absolutely disagree that this Bill or this amendment is the right way to address it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has spoken for 33 minutes in a debate that is due to last for an hour, and we have yet to hear from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. There will not be time to have a proper debate on this matter, which is of great importance to a number of people. Will the Government please make available more time beyond the 60-minute time limit?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which was not in fact a point of order. He will be aware that the programme motion has already been agreed to by the House.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

As hon. Members know, the substance of this Bill began with the previous Government, in recognition of the need to streamline and harness the use of data to grow the economy and drive improvement in the delivery of public services. As I have said before, when the Bill started its life, most of us had no idea that it would become the vehicle for addressing some of the most important social and technological issues of our time.

Although I welcome the huge benefits that the Bill will bring to the economy and public services when it comes into force, I fear that it will go down on the Government’s record as the Bill of missed opportunities. It is a missed opportunity to fix our flawed public data sets, which present a barrier to tracking and tackling inequalities in areas such as women’s health; a missed opportunity to commit to a review of protections for children in their use of social media platforms, and to taking action to increase those protections where the evidence shows there is good reason to do so; and a missed opportunity to provide much-needed certainty to two of our key growth industries, the creative and AI sectors, on how they can interact to promote their mutual growth and flourishing.

It could be seen as somewhat dispiriting to be back at the Dispatch Box again, having the debate on copyright and AI with the Department’s ministerial team, but I see that there has been an upgrade since our last outing at the Dispatch Box. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his tone and his approach to this debate, particularly his recognition of previous mistakes made. As politicians, we do not say sorry often enough, or recognise mistakes or where we would have wanted things to go better. I appreciate the statements he has made from the Dispatch Box, but the fact that we are here is testament to the determination and sincere concern of Members of both Houses. Whatever Benches they sit on, they are deeply concerned that we must not miss this opportunity to find a solution to such a significant challenge.

Our colleagues in the other place have spoken about their commitment to the primacy of this House, and their reticence to delay the passage of this Bill any further than is absolutely necessary. Their resolve demonstrates the importance of this issue to Members of both Houses and the stakeholders they represent. The Government have spoken repeatedly of their commitment to protecting the creative industries, but their actions are still yet to match their rhetoric. It appears that “reviews” have today been upgraded to “working groups.”

Many excuses have been made for why the Government feel unable to act now. Baroness Kidron and other noble Lords have acted in good faith on the Government’s stated concerns, and have sought to address them in the latest iteration of their transparency amendment on copyright and AI. Lords amendment 49D would provide the Government with flexibility to put in place proportionate regulations on the transparency of AI enterprises by reference to their size. Importantly, it would allow a reasonable timeframe for the Government to complete their review of responses to their consultation, which concluded in February, before the Secretary of State is compelled to lay draft transparency regulations before Parliament.

For the third time, an amendment on this topic received the overwhelming support of Members in the other place, and the debate at the last round showed that the strength of feeling is mirrored in this House. Amendment 49D is a balanced clause that would put in place a much-needed long-stop date to provide the certainty that creatives and the technology industries alike have been calling for. As the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) suggested, it is a backstop.

The Government have run out of excuses for failing to act. Today we have an opportunity to achieve something relatively rare in our political climate: creating effective, balanced legislation based on cross-party compromise. It is important to public confidence in Government to show that we can put sound principles above politics when the overwhelming need arises. The Government have another opportunity today; let us make sure that it is not another missed one.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

I rise to speak to Lords amendment 49D. As the Bill returns to this House, I am grateful that the other place continues to fight for creatives, and this amendment focuses on the fundamental principle of transparency while securing the principle of proportionality. I am also grateful for the cross-party work and support in this House and the movement from the Secretary of State today. I know that many Members have signed various amendments standing up for creatives, and I call on colleagues across the House to consider how they vote today on this amendment.

At its very core, the amendment would require AI companies to provide copyright owners with clear, relevant information about how their works are being used for AI development and training. The amendment is clear that it is for the trader or data holder to ensure that the data is accessible to copyright owners upon request. Behind that are real people, real communities and the rich tapestry of a £126 billion creative industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Well, the Clerks may have advised—[Interruption.] I merely suggest that it is very unclear. As many in the House of Lords have suggested, it is very unclear how the amendment can engage financial privilege. The amendment use the word “may”, so it does not contain any requirement on the Government to indulge in financial expenditure. It is a worrying precedent if the Government are going to avoid debate on policy by suggesting that—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I think it would be helpful if I clarified that that is a matter for the Chair and not for the Government.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker; it just looks very strange to see that the amendment “engages financial privilege” when there is no financial requirement in the amendment.

I will finish on one further point. I understand the Secretary of State’s keenness to attract investment from tech companies. When we have previously debated legislation affecting tech companies, on each occasion we have heard that it may result in their being unwilling to come and invest in this country, but that has never been the case. I hope the Secretary of State will not listen to those who say that if we proceeded to enforce copyright law, it may somehow result in tech companies finding this country unattractive. I do not believe that is the case and I do not believe that it would jeopardise the jobs that the Government are keen to create. But unless we proceed down the route of accepting the Lords amendment, we will jeopardise the jobs of the 2.4 million people in this country who are employed in the creative industries.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49D.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Hang on! Madam Deputy Speaker, we will have to set up a queuing system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The Minister is very popular.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure that it is popularity, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The important point is that we need to look at this in the round, rather than piecemeal. I do not think that what is on the amendment paper today would deliver anything now. Indeed, it does not purport to; it instead purports to give something in six, nine or 12 months’ time, or sometime in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

A Division was called.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Division off.

Question agreed to.

Clause 67

Meaning of research and statistical purposes

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 43B. —(Chris Bryant.)

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I rise to confirm my agreement with new clauses 1 and 12, and I associate myself with the speech of the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden). I have had several emails on the protection of copyrighted information and revenue streams for artists, including from Yvonne, who contacted me recently. It is essential that the creative arts and intellectual property are protected and that artists are properly compensated if their output is used in AI.

On new clauses 1 and 12, the case for raising the age of consent for data processing from 13 to 16 has been well made across the House, so I will not repeat the points made, but I will say that it is essential that we give our children their childhoods back. They need to be protected from the toxic content to which they are being exposed by social media and online.

New clauses 3 to 6 and new clause 14 would place transparency requirements on AI companies to report on what information and data they have used, from where, and with what permission. That is essential to holding the AI companies to account and to ensuring that content holders and data owners are informed and have adequate channels of redress for misuse of their information.

I am sure that new clause 7 was spoken about while I was out of the Chamber, but let me say now that the right for our citizens to use non-digital verification is key. My mother—who is in her late 60s, bless her—would not have a clue what to do if she did not have family to help her with her benefits claims, doctors’ prescriptions, appointments and so on. We cannot exclude millions of our citizens who may choose not to have smartphones and not to be exposed to toxic content online, or who are simply not tech-literate. I urge the Government to ensure that we do not exclude millions of our citizens. I also strongly support new clause 11, but I will defer to earlier speakers in that regard.

As for new clause 18, many constituents have written to me or spoken to me, expressing concern about sharing their NHS and other private data with third parties such as Palantir. It is essential for this new Government to adopt a posture of supporting ethical, transparent business practices for all suppliers who provide services in our country. We have already heard about the background of Palantir. I do not know how true this is, but some of my constituents believed, or had read, that during the Prime Minister’s first visit to the US, after meeting Donald Trump he visited Palantir’s headquarters, or one of its offices. I urge the Government to protect—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s time is up.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

I rise to speak in strong support of new clauses 1 and 2.

New clause 1 seeks to raise the age of consent for social media data processing from 13 to 16. As the father of two young boys, I am deeply concerned about the way in which tech platforms engineer addiction, manipulate attention, and shape childhood in ways that parents and even Governments cannot easily counter. This is not hypothetical; it is the reality that our children are living every day. Children aged 13 to 15 are especially vulnerable. Those social media algorithms do not just show content. They shape beliefs, reinforce insecurities and amplify harm. Whether it is body image filters, content promoting self-harm or endless scrolling, these platforms are designed for engagement, not wellbeing.

The new clause would not ban young people from using social media. It simply says that their data should not be exploited for commercial gain without genuine, informed consent. By raising the age to 16 for these specific practices, we align with international best practice and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. With clear exemptions for education and health platforms, this is a targeted and proportionate reform that prioritises children’s mental health.

New clause 2 deals with copyright compliance and AI. As we all know, the AI revolution is here, but just as we would not let a factory operate by stealing its raw materials from others, we should not let AI models train on copyrighted work, such as books, music or journalism, without permission or payment. The new clause makes one clear demand: if an AI system operates in the UK, it must respect UK copyright law, regardless of where the servers are based. We are standing up for our creators—for the authors, musicians, film-makers and developers whose work gives AI its power. In Wales alone, the creative industries turned over £1.5 billion in 2023, employing more than 37,000 people. Let us not wait for lawsuits or damage to our industries. The new clause provides legal clarity, defends creators, and affirms that Parliament, not silicon valley, writes the rules.

These Liberal Democrat new clauses are principled, practical and long overdue, and I urge all Members to support them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Spencer]

It has been a pleasure to hear the speeches of Members from across the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who spoke with passion about the protection of copyright in AI. I suspect that my right hon. Friend is looking forward to seeing the back of the Bill, and hoping that it does not return in a future iteration. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke of the importance of ensuring that data does not fall victim to hostile states and hostile state actors. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) spoke with knowledge and authority about this important issue, and the challenges and practicalities involved in ensuring that we get it right for our children.

I will return to the three themes that we have put forward. The Minister has repeatedly given assurances on the application of copyright with regard to AI training, but the Secretary of State created uncertainty by saying in the AI copyright consultation:

“At present, the application of UK copyright law to the training of AI models is disputed.”

When we create that level of uncertainty, we need at least an equal level of clarity to make amends, and that is partly what our new clause 20 calls for: among other things, a formal statement from the Intellectual Property Office or otherwise. I do not see why it is a challenge for the Government to put that forward and deliver.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[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 ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

The shadow DSIT team, including our shadow Secretary of State, have met representatives of industry in general. I have met representatives of the creative industries, and I am fairly sure the shadow Secretary of State has too. That is what the consultation is there for. It would not be appropriate to make a unilateral declaration from the Dispatch Box when a live consultation is looking into that complicated area. That would be not be reasonable opposition or good for anybody.

There are no easy answers to some of the challenges, but we should not shy away from them given the clear gains for the public and the economy that many of the reforms set out in the Bill will deliver. His Majesty’s official Opposition and the shadow DSIT team stand ready to work with the Government, wherever possible, to find solutions on these pressing issues. Effective engagement between Government and Opposition will promote confidence among tech companies and would-be investors that the UK is open for business. The last Government’s vision was to harness the UK’s competitive advantage in tech industries to boost our economy and revolutionise the way we live for the benefit of our population. We remain committed to that goal in opposition.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Minister.

Creative Industries

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I do not intend to put a formal time limit on speeches yet, but there are lots of Members standing, so it would be helpful if Members could restrict themselves to between six and seven minutes.

Artificial Intelligence Opportunities Action Plan

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement about the Government’s AI opportunities action plan.

This Government were elected on a programme of change. Today, we are publishing the latest step in delivering our plan for change with the AI opportunities action plan. Our plan for change is clear: we will grow the economy, backing British business, with good jobs putting more money in working people’s pockets; and we will rebuild our crumbling public services, too, providing our people with world-class healthcare and education. That ambition shapes our approach to artificial intelligence—the technology set to define our shared future economic and social progress.

AI is no longer the stuff of sci-fi movies and “Dr Who”; the AI revolution is right here and right now. In NHS hospitals, AI is helping doctors to detect and treat disease faster and more effectively, reducing patient waits and saving more lives. In local schools, AI is equipping teachers with the tools to spend more time helping every pupil to achieve their full potential. In high streets across the country, small businesses have started using AI to grow their companies and compete on the global stage.

The applications are boundless and the opportunities profound, but only those countries with the courage to seize them will fully benefit. We do not get to decide whether AI will become part of our world—it already is; the choice is between waiting for AI to reshape our lives, or shaping the future of that technology so that the British economy and working people reap its maximum benefit. We choose fully to embrace the opportunity that AI presents to build a better future for all our citizens. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty.

Since the first industrial revolution, science and technological progress has been the single greatest force of change. Once again, a reforming Labour Government are called to harness the white heat of scientific revolution in the interests of working people. From ending hospital backlogs to securing home-grown energy and giving children the best start in life, AI is essential to our programme of change.

Championing change is in Britons’ DNA—we pioneered the age of steam. I believe that Britain can be a leader now, in the AI age. With world-class talent, excellent universities and an unrivalled record of scientific discovery, we can do so. Home to success stories such as Google DeepMind, ARM and Wayve, we have the third largest AI market in the world.

Just as we have been on AI safety, I believe that Britain has a responsibility to provide global leadership by fairly and effectively seizing the opportunities that AI presents to improve lives. That is why in July last year I asked Matt Clifford to prepare the AI opportunities action plan. Across 50 recommendations, that plan shows how we can shape the application of AI in a modern social market economy, anchored in principles of shared prosperity, improved public services and increased personal opportunity. Through partnership with leading companies and researchers, we will strengthen the foundations of our AI ecosystem, use AI to deliver real change for our citizens, and secure our future by ensuring that we are home to the firms right at the frontier of this technology.

Change has already started. Our transformative planning reforms will make it easier to build data centres—the industrial engines of the AI age. Skills England will prepare British people to be active participants in tomorrow’s business successes. The digital centre of government will use technology to transform the relationship between the modern state and citizens. However, faced with a technology that shows no signs of slowing, we must move faster and further. We are taking forward recommendations to expand Britain’s sovereign AI compute capacity by at least 20 times by 2030, ensuring that British researchers can access the tools they need to develop cutting-edge AI.

We will create AI growth zones to speed up the construction of critical compute infrastructure right across the United Kingdom. With enhanced access to power and streamlined planning approvals, those zones will bring faster growth and better jobs to communities who have missed out in the past. The first pilot AI growth zone will be at Culham in Oxfordshire, a world-renowned hub for clean energy and fusion research. They will pioneer innovative partnerships with business to deliver secure dedicated computing capacity that supports our national priorities. We will also seek a private sector partner to develop one of the UK’s largest AI data centres, beginning with 100 MW of capacity, with plans to scale up to 500 MW.

One of the biggest barriers to success in the AI age is the immense amount of energy that the technology uses. The Energy Secretary and I are convening and co-chairing a new AI energy council to provide expert insight into how to meet this demand, including opportunities to accelerate investment in innovative solutions, such as small modular reactors.

Infrastructure alone, though, is not enough. To deliver security, prosperity and opportunity for every citizen into the long term, we must be makers of this technology, and not just takers. Britain needs our own national champions—our own Googles and Microsofts. We are launching a new dedicated team with a mandate to strengthen our sovereign AI capacities by supporting high-potential frontier AI companies in the UK. This team will work across and beyond Government, partnering with the fast-growing firms to ensure that they can access the compute capacity, the data and the global talent they need to succeed in Britain.

We have already seen how a small number of companies at the frontier of AI are set to wield outsized global influence. We have a narrow window of opportunity to secure a stake in the future of AI. By acting now, we can secure a better future for the British people in the decades to come, but this is just the start. We will safely unlock the value of public sector data assets to support secure, responsible and ethical AI innovation. We will overhaul the skills system to safeguard our status as a top destination for global talent, with a workforce ready for the AI age. We will use a scan, pilot and scale approach to quickly identify and trial ways of using AI to transform our economy and improve our public services.

The stakes just could not be higher. This is a top priority for the Prime Minister and across Government. We will harness the power of AI to fulfil our promise to the British people of better jobs, better public services and better lives. We have attracted more than £25 billion-worth of investment into AI since we took office. This week alone, global giants have committed a further £14 billion-worth of investment. Phase 2 of the spending review will see every Department using technology to drive forward our national missions to deliver better value for taxpayers. AI will also be fundamental to the industrial strategy to attract investment, to grow the economy and to create high-quality, well-paid jobs across the country.

The AI revolution is now. This Government are determined to fully harness this opportunity for British businesses and working people right across the United Kingdom. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government embracing AI and the Secretary of State’s leadership in accepting every single one of Matt Clifford’s recommendations —I hope he will be as receptive in accepting the recommendations of my Committee. Does the Secretary of State agree that those who say this plan is irrelevant to the challenges of economic growth in public sector financing that we are facing fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the opportunities that AI represents, its presence everywhere in our lives already, the frenetic pace of its implementation and its ability to drive growth? Most importantly, however, they misunderstand the nature of business confidence. Having a Government who understand how to drive these opportunities into every home, business and public sector service in the land is a reason for business confidence.

[Peter Kyle]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments and for the service of her Committee. It was a privilege to go before her Committee so soon after its formation, and I look forward to engaging in the future. She is completely right. We hear a lot about business confidence and the words that come out of certain parts of the business community, but today, they have voted with their investment. We have announced an additional £14 billion and the creation of up to 13,000 jobs as a result of today’s investment—that is business showing confidence in this Government. Of course, for many of the schemes announced today, the policies will deliver into the short, medium and long term. Together with our regulatory innovation office and our planning reforms, that investment will mean that shovels go into the ground quickly, and the jobs and wealth that will be created by it will start paying dividends very soon.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I revert to the article in The Times mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), headlined: “Rachel Reeves using AI to reply to Treasury emails”.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Even if the right hon. Gentleman is quoting from a newspaper, I would prefer it if he did not use the Chancellor’s name.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not want to misquote the headline.

Nevertheless—as we now all know who she is—I discover that, instead of corresponding with her civil servants, as I thought, I am engaging with something called a “correspondence triage automation tool”, which is used for

“the automatic matching of correspondence with appropriate standard responses”.

That might give us cause to chuckle, but can we at least have an assurance that when we write to Ministers, even if they are not replying, they will at least be informed of the fact that concerns have been raised by Members of this House?

[Peter Kyle]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that Ministers are fully engaged in corresponding with Members across the House. Having been a Back Bencher for so long in opposition, I can assure you that I strive to be a lot better than what I experienced during so many of those years.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Can I just remind the Secretary of State that we do not use “you” in the Chamber? Please can questions and answers be brief? I would like to get everybody in before 6 o’clock.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State and his team for their vision and leadership on this critical issue. These exciting plans could help us to drive growth, create jobs and improve public services. Places like Peterborough could be at the heart of the silicon fens if we get this right. Critical to that will be the issue of skills in cities like mine—cities that were left behind for too long by the previous Government. Can the Secretary of State update and inform us on what progress his Department is making on assessing the UK skills gap when it comes to AI, and how we can ensure that growth benefits all parts of the country as we embark on this plan?

Live Events Ticketing: Resale and Pricing Practices

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about ticketing in the live events sector.

In the words of the musical “Hamilton”, there is nothing quite like being

“in the room where it happens”.

I would hazard a guess that every single one of us here can remember the first time we went to a live event. My first rugby international was Wales versus Scotland at Murrayfield aged 12—the food was terrible. My first live gig was U2’s “The Joshua Tree” at Wembley arena. These moments of shared passion are part of what makes us the people we are. As Gloria Gaynor said,

“There’s nothing to compare to live music, there just isn’t anything.”

No wonder live events are so highly prized.

But for far too long, ticket touts have leached off fans’ passion. In the past, it was spivs in long raincoats at the gates. Nowadays it is a trade made all the more pernicious by the internet, which enables modern-day touts, hiding behind multiple false identities, to hoover up tickets and sell them at vastly inflated prices. It is indefensible. It trades off other people’s hopes and does not return a single penny to the artists, the performers, the venue, the industry or the sport. We said we would tackle this, and that is precisely what we are doing.

On Friday, the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport published a consultation on the resale of live event tickets and a separate call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector. It is not a consultation on whether to act; it is a consultation on precisely how we should act. The UK has a world-leading live events sector. Our artists, festivals and venues bring joy to audiences across the country. Last year, the sector employed over 200,000 people, contributing to local economies up and down the country, from stage technicians and sound engineers to venue staff and promoters. Every event—whether a major stadium event or an intimate gig at a grassroots venue—injects life into local communities and economies, supporting small businesses and generating significant revenue for our towns and cities. It is musicians, performers and athletes who make the events what they are and who create the value that sits behind them, not the ticket touts.

Live events are a catalyst for creativity, too, where artists have a platform to hone their craft and relate directly to audiences, as well as to earn a living. Live performances create unforgettable shared experiences that transcend cultural and social boundaries, uniting communities up and down the country and shaping our national identity. However, too many fans are missing out on opportunities to experience those live events. Put simply, the ticketing market is not working for fans.

The Government recognise that a well-functioning ticket resale market can play an important role—for instance, allowing those who cannot attend an event to give someone else the opportunity to go in their place. But far too often tickets are listed on the resale market at extortionate prices, many multiples of the face value. Just one example: standing tickets for Charli XCX’s current UK tour were originally priced at £54, but they have been listed on ticket resale sites for as much as £400. That is enough, as she herself would put it, to

“Shock you like defibrillators”.

So-called scalping is the work of organised touts, who systematically buy up tickets in bulk on the primary market then resell them to fans at hugely inflated prices. The Government are committed to putting fans back at the heart of live events and clamping down on unfair exploitative practices. In doing so, we want fairness for fans and an economically successful live events sector. We made a manifesto commitment to act on this issue, and that is precisely what we will do.

That is why we have launched a consultation as the first major step towards delivering on this ambition. We want to act in an effective and responsible way, ensuring that any new protections work for fans and the live events sector. The consultation outlines a range of potential options to address ongoing problems. We are revisiting the recommendations from the Competition and Market Authority’s 2021 report on secondary ticketing that were not taken forward by the previous Government. They include a licensing regime for resale platforms, new limits on the number of tickets that individual resellers can list, and new requirements for platforms to ensure the accuracy of information about tickets listed for sale on their websites.

We are also keen to tackle scalping—that is to say for-profit resales of tickets above face value. That is why we are considering a statutory price cap on ticket resales, as seen in many other countries. Its purpose would be to break the business model of organised touts by prohibiting resale at vastly inflated prices. In the consultation, we ask how a price cap should be designed and implemented, so as to deliver a genuine sea change in the ticketing landscape to the benefit of fans and the live events sector, and whether it should be face value only, or plus 10%, 20% or 30%.

There is one other aspect—we might call it “the Oasis moment”—on which we are seeking evidence. The live events sector has adopted new approaches to selling tickets in recent years, including the use of new pricing strategies, and technologies such as dynamic pricing. I want to be absolutely clear: not all dynamic pricing is harmful. Fans often take advantage of early-bird tickets and last-minute price reductions—that is absolutely fine and we have no intention of stopping it. The key thing is that fans are treated fairly and openly, with timely, transparent and accurate information presented ahead of sales.

To better understand these changes and the challenges faced by fans, we are publishing a call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector. The consultation and call for evidence will be open for 12 weeks. We strongly encourage all interested stakeholders—fans, artists and performers, ticketing platforms and the wider live events sector—to respond. Once the consultation is complete, we will decide on next steps, but the House should be no doubt that we intend to act.

We have a world-class live events sector in the UK, but we do not have a secondary ticket market to match. In the words of T. Rex:

“It’s a rip-off

Such a rip-off”.

To the fans, the performers and the touts, let me be crystal clear: we will clamp down on unfair practices in the secondary market. The question is not whether but how we improve protections for fans. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I agree that my hon. Friend has campaigned on the subject for 15 years, because I have heard nearly every speech she has made on it, and she has been absolutely magnificent over the years. I pay tribute to her. Many artists in this country will be grateful for her work because so often they are caught in a completely invidious situation as they see tickets going for preposterous prices. I looked earlier at StubHub, which is selling Dua Lipa tickets for Wembley on 20 June with a face value of £81.45 for £2,417. For Jimmy Carr at Milton Keynes in two days’ time, Viagogo has tickets with a face value of £60 for £202. That is the problem that we must deal with.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about supranational issues; this problem does not just apply in the UK. It is difficult for us to prevent these people from selling tickets for Olivia Rodrigo concerts in Mexico, but we can ensure that measures do apply for Olivia Rodrigo concerts in the UK. She is also absolutely right about enforcement. That is why we are looking at whether there should be a licensing regime and, if so, precisely how that should work. She has made this point in many speeches—I will reiterate it for her: we have hardly seen any prosecutions whatever under the complex set of rules that there are at the moment, and that is one of the things that we have to fix.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I add my thanks to the Minister for advance sight of the statement. It is good to have the Government’s next steps to try to support fans, performers and others working in the live events industry laid out in the announcement. We know the huge value of live events in this country, which make a great contribution to our economic as well as our cultural wellbeing, and it is right that the Government are taking action. Too many fans across the country have fallen prey to sharp practices and touts ripping them off, and the Liberal Democrats are supportive of taking action.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for the implementation of the Competition and Markets Authority’s recommendations to crack down on ticket resale. Those recommendations should be leading the Government forward on this issue. Measures such as capping ticket resales are important. Can the Minister provide greater clarity on the Government’s intentions in that regard? Will he suggest what cap on ticket resales the Government would favour at the moment and what new powers of enforcement they will give to trading standards and the CMA? Beyond those measures, will the Government consider being more ambitious by, for example, giving consumers more control by requiring ticket companies to provide accurate information on price increases or answering Liberal Democrat calls to review the use of transaction fees?

I want to be clear that we welcome the Government’s looking at the queuing systems used by ticket sellers in both the primary and resale markets and considering measures that could address the current situation, which, as the Minister described, too often feels unfair and arbitrary to those fans on the end of it. Hearing the voices of fans in this discussion is undoubtedly important, so we really welcome the consultation, but fans also want to know that the Government will get on and act to solve these problems. To conclude, may I ask the Minister to inform the House about when fans will start to see some changes being implemented?

[Chris Bryant]

I welcome the hon. Member to his post and welcome the Lib Dems’ support for what we are proposing. There are just a couple of things. He referred to accurate information, which it could certainly be argued is already legislated for but not well enforced. Indeed, when I looked at some of these sites earlier today, it was interesting to see that sometimes the face value was findable, but not at the same time as the price to be paid. We would think it should be mandatory for somebody to be able to see both at the same time, to see whether they are going to be ripped off. I personally do not subscribe to the line that if somebody is prepared to pay £2,417 for a Dua Lipa ticket, so be it. It seems to me that that is effectively the line from Eurythmics:

“Some of them want to be abused”;

I do not think that we should adopt that policy at all.

On the point that the hon. Member made about transaction fees, I think that I am right in saying that section 230 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 would already apply to what he is arguing for. If I have got that wrong, I will send him a note.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I note that at one point—it may have been at a particular event—you said that your favourite song was “Girls Just Want to Have Fun” by Cyndi Lauper. She performed at the Royal Albert Hall last year, and I am not sure whether you were there.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I commend the Minister for his astonishing memory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I commend my hon. Friend on her private Member’s Bill. I told her that we were going to be acting fairly soon so her Bill might not be necessary. She did not believe me, and she ploughed on, but we are intent on acting.

My hon. Friend is quite right about dynamic pricing. I have been involved in a small arts festival in Treorchy in my constituency where we offer early-bird tickets. That is a form of dynamic pricing that I think works for everybody, and we certainly do not want to prohibit that.

My hon. Friend is quite right: much as I like my opposite number, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), I find it quite easy to resist him. When I think of the previous Government, I keep thinking of this line from Pink:

“What about all the plans that ended in disaster?”

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s putting music fans at the forefront of these consultations, although the Minister will know that I would like him to go further and have a full fan-led review of music. Meanwhile, looking at the details of these consultations, it is telling that while Ticketmaster welcomed the resale consultations, it is silent on the dynamic pricing issue. The Minister will recall that Oasis told their fans that dynamic pricing was a

“tool to combat ticket touting”.

Does he agree that if the Government act decisively to stop large-scale touting from inflating ticket prices, there will be less need for promoters such as Live Nation to have to use dynamic pricing?

Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I disagree. I saw the right hon. Gentleman nodding earlier when I was talking about not wanting to pull the rug from under the feet of UK AI adopters. The UK is in a very specific position. We have probably the best copyright laws of any country because of the specific way in which they developed. It is partly thanks to Hogarth, Dickens and many others over the years that we have ended up with strong copyright legislation. We also have a strong body of intellectual property in this country, which is enormously valuable, potentially, to AI operators. We stand in a very specific position. There is an argument that AI can be trained elsewhere, in another jurisdiction, but the moment it is brought into the UK, it still falls under UK legislation.

The right hon. Gentleman is also right about this. I did not consult Taylor Swift, but I did ask an AI company to come up with a song in the manner of Adele.

“Oh, I still feel you deep in my soul,

Even though you left me out here on my own.

The love we had it’s slipping through my hands,

But I can’t forget, I still don’t understand.

You’re gone, but your memory’s all I see,

And in the silence, it’s you haunting me”—

Madam Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.] It is sort of Adele, but it is not Adele. Does Adele know that her material has been used? Does her record label know that her lyrics have been used to create that? It is sort of in the territory, but it is not right. I think we can get this right in the UK and provide leadership to the world. That is what we should strive for.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I will just make the point that I can see that this is very technical and complicated. It might require long answers, but I am not sure it required that level of input from not-Adele.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

Can the Minister clarify the difference between his term “rights reservation” and previous reports of the Government’s preference for an opt-out system? Those systems have already been called out and considered unjust by our creators. There are AI leaders who recognise the need for fair licensing. What assurances can the Government provide to support both human and AI innovation? Does the Minister, with his creative industries hat on, agree that respecting copyright would see the introduction of an opt-in system as essential?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

This is a timely statement, because I have been conversing with Anne, one of my constituents. Anne is a visual artist and dress designer, and she has exactly the concerns that you set out.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. It is the Minister who is setting out concerns, not me.

[Mike Martin]

I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I will recommend to Anne that she contributes to the consultation. However, the Minister hits on the nub of the problem, which is the international element. For me, the key example is China, a country that has a history of stealing IP and is a key player in the international AI competition. I wish the Minister well in this work, but how can we thread the needle so that, if the consultation leads to a Bill that gets implemented, we avoid not only the copyright of our creatives being stolen by Chinese AI firms but handing the AI advantage to China?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I don’t think I am allowed to sing at the Dispatch Box.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The Minister would be well advised not to sing at the Dispatch Box, but I thank him for his comprehensive responses this afternoon.

Telegraph Poles: Planning Permission

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

In Stourbridge in the west midlands, we face similar problems with the same company, which is causing havoc. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the legislation was passed in 2013, yet in 2024, we are still waiting for the full roll-out of ultrafast broadband. Although I appreciate what he says about our current adequate speeds, they could be much faster. When I was recently in Ukraine, I experienced far better internet connectivity than I do in central London or Stourbridge town centre. Our European neighbours are enjoying much faster broadband while we languish behind, and Stourbridge residents have been left at the mercy of these third-party companies—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady might like to sit while I am standing. I have previously told Members that interventions should be short and spontaneous. It is not an opportunity to read out a pre-prepared speech. If she wanted to speak in this debate, she could have asked permission from both the Minister and the Member in charge, and that would have been acceptable.

[Laurence Turner]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles).