Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes
Chi Onwurah Excerpts(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Chi Onwurah.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Unlike her shadow, the Secretary of State was rightly passionate when calling out these sexually abusive images. The libertarian tech bro lobby has to accept that consent counts online, too. In her letter to me today, the Secretary of State said that the Online Safety Act was designed to deal with this, but she is being overly generous to the previous Government. The Act was designed, or fudged, to give adults some protection from illegal content on certain services, and to protect children from harmful content more generally, but not including generative AI, and without making platforms responsible for content that they share. Will my right hon. Friend now accept my Committee’s recommendations. and do more to explicitly plug the gaps in the Act, particularly regarding generative AI, as well as tackling the social media business models that incentivise the content that we are talking about?
Liz Kendall
I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend for all the work she and her Committee have done on this issue. I have read its work in detail since coming into post. She will know that I have already said on the issue of AI chatbots, for example, that some are covered by the Act—if they do live searches or share user-to-user content—but I have asked my officials to see where there are gaps. They have said that there are gaps, and I have said that I want to plug them, including by legislating, if that is necessary.
This is a fast-moving area. With the Online Safety Act, plus the additional measures we have taken in the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and that we will take in the Crime and Policing Bill, we have quite a comprehensive suite of powers here, but I know this is developing quickly, particularly around generative AI. I am always prepared to look to the facts and the evidence and go where that leads me, and if I need to take further action, I will.
AI Safety
Chi Onwurah Excerpts(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Iqbal Mohamed
I completely agree. We have to consider the functionality available in these tools and the way they are used—wherever regulations exist for that service in our society, the same regulations should be applied to automated tools providing that service. Clearly, controlling an automated system will be more difficult than training healthcare professionals and auditing their effectiveness.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this really important debate. It is certainly the case that UK law applies to AI, just as it applies online. The question is whether AI requires new regulation specifically to address the threats and concerns surrounding AI. We refrained from regulating the internet—and I should declare an interest, having worked for Ofcom at the time—in order to support innovation. Under consecutive Conservative Governments, there was a desire not to intervene in the market. The internet has largely been taken over by large consolidated companies and does not have the diversity of innovation and creativity or the safety that we might want to see.
Iqbal Mohamed
The enforcement processes that we have for existing regulations where human beings are providing that service are auditable. We do not have enforcement mechanisms for this kind of regulated service or information being provided by the internet or AI tools. There is a need to extend the scope of regulation but also the way in which we enforce that regulation for automated tools.
I am a fan of innovation, growth and progress in society. However, we cannot move forward with progress at any cost. AI poses such a significant risk that if we do not regulate at the right time, we will not have a chance to get it back under control—it might be too late. Now is the time to start looking at this seriously and supporting the AI industry so that it is a force for good in society, not a future force of destruction.
We are all facing a climate and nature emergency. AI is driving unprecedented growth in energy demand. According to the International Energy Agency, global data-centre electricity consumption will become slightly more than Japan’s total electricity consumption today. A House of Commons Library research briefing found that UK data centres currently consume 2.5% of the country’s electricity, with the sector’s consumption expected to rise fourfold by 2030. The increased demand strains the grid, slows transition to renewables and contributes to emissions that drive climate change. This issue must go hand in hand with our climate change obligations.
Members have probably heard and read about AI’s impact on the job market. One of the clearest harms we are already seeing is the loss of jobs. That is not a future worry; it is happening now. Independent analysis shows that up to 8 million UK jobs are at risk from AI automation, with admin, customer service and junior professional roles being the most exposed. Another harm that we are already facing is the explosion of AI-driven scams. Generative AI-enabled scams have risen more than 450% in a single year, alongside a major surge in breached personal data and AI-generated phishing attempts. Deepfake-related fraud has increased by thousands of per cent, and one in every 20 identity-verification failures is now linked to AI manipulation.
I move on to the ugly: the threat to the world. The idea that AI developers may lose control of the AI systems they create is not science fiction; it is the stated concern of the scientists who build this technology—the godfathers of AI, as we call them. One of them, Yoshua Bengio, has said:
“If we build AIs that are smarter than us and are not aligned with us and compete with us, then we’re basically cooked”.
Geoffrey Hinton, another godfather of AI and a winner of the Nobel prize in physics, said:
“I actually think the risk is more than 50% of the existential threat”.
Stuart Russell, the author of the standard AI textbook, says that if we pursue our current approach
“then we will eventually lose control over the machines.”
In May 2023, hundreds of AI researchers and industry leaders signed a statement declaring:
“Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war”.
That is not scaremongering; these are professional experts who are warning us to make sure that this technology does not get out of control.
Iqbal Mohamed
The hon. Member touches on a broader point: any area with experts and specialist requirements for end users or for the use of that tool for an audience or demographic must directly involve those people and experts in the development, testing, verification and follow-up auditing of the effectiveness of those tools.
AI companies are racing to build increasingly capable AI with the explicit end goal of creating AI that is equal to or able to exceed the most capable human intellectual ability across all domains. AI companies are also pursuing AI that can be used to accelerate their own AI developments, so it is a self-developing, self-perpetuating technology. For that reason, many experts, some of whom I have quoted, say that this will lead to artificial super-intelligence soon after. ASI is an AI system that significantly exceeds the upper limit of human intellectual ability across all domains. The concerns, risks and dangers of AI are current and will only get worse. We are already seeing systems behave in ways that no one designed, deceiving users, manipulating their environments and showing the beginnings of self-preserving strategies: exactly the behaviours that researchers predicted if AI developed without restraint.
There are documented examples of deception, where AI asked a human to approve something by lying, claiming to be a human with visual impairment contacting them. An example of manipulation can be found in Meta’s CICERO, an AI trained to play the game of “Diplomacy”, which achieved human-level performance by negotiating, forming alliances and then breaking them when it benefited. Researchers noted that language was used strategically to mislead other players and deceive them. That was not a glitch; it was the system discovering manipulation as an effective strategy. It taught itself how to deceive others to achieve an outcome.
Even more concerning are cases where models behave in ways to resemble self-preservation. In recent tests on the DeepSeek R1 model, researchers found that it concealed its intentions, produced dangerously misleading advice and attempted to hack its reward signals when placed under pressure—behaviours it was never trained to exhibit. Those are early signs of systems acting beyond our instructions.
More advanced systems are on the horizon. Artificial general intelligence and even artificial superintelligence are no longer confined to speculative fiction. As lawmakers, we must understand their potential impacts and ensure we establish the rules, standards and safeguards necessary to protect our economy, environment and society, if things go wrong. The potential risks, including extreme risks, posed by AI cannot be dismissed. This may be existential and cause the end of our species. The potential extinction risks from advanced AI, particularly through the emergence of superintelligence, will be the capacity to process vast amounts of data, demonstrate superior reasoning across domains and constantly seek to improve itself, ultimately outpacing humans in our ability to stop it in its tracks.
The dangers of AI are rising. As I have said, AI is already displacing jobs, increasing inequalities, amplifying existing social and economic inequalities and threatening civil liberties. At the extreme, unregulated progress may create national security vulnerabilities with implications for the long-term survival of the human species. Empirical research in 2024 showed OpenAI occasionally displayed strategic deception in controlled environments. In one case, AI was found to bypass its own testing containment through a back door it created. Having been developed in environments that are allegedly ringfenced and disconnected from the wider world, AI is intelligent enough to find ways out.
Right now, there is a significant lack of legislative measures to counter those developments, despite top AI engineers asking us for that. We currently have a laissez-faire system where a sandwich has more regulation than AI companies, or even that of the rigorous safety standards placed on pharmaceuticals or aviation companies, which protect public health. The UK cannot afford to fall behind on this.
I do not want to dwell on doom and gloom; there is hope. The European Union, California and New York are leading the way on strong AI governance. The EU AI Act establishes a risk-based comprehensive regulatory framework. California is advancing detailed standards on system evaluations and algorithmic accountability, and New York has pioneered transparency and bias-audit rules for automated decision making. Those approaches show that democratic nations can take bold, responsible action to protect their citizens while fostering innovation.
We in the UK are fortunate to have a world-leading ecosystem of AI safety researchers. The UK AI Security Institute conducts essential work testing frontier models for dangerous capabilities, but it currently relies on companies’ good will to provide deployment action.
We stand at a threshold of an era defined by AI. Our responsibility as legislators is clear: we cannot afford complacency, nor can we allow the UK to drift into a position in where safety, transparency and accountability are afterthoughts, rather than foundational principles. The risk posed by advanced AI systems to our economy, our security and our very autonomy are real, escalating and well documented by the world’s leading experts. The United Kingdom has the scientific talent, the industrial capacity and the democratic mandate to lead in safe and trustworthy AI, but we lack the legislative framework to match that ambition. I urge the Government to urgently bring forward an AI Bill as a cross-party endeavour, and perhaps even set up a dedicated Select Committee for AI, given how serious the issue is.
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Gentleman—a fellow engineer—for allowing this intervention. As the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee—a number of fantastic Committee members are here—I would like to say that we have already looked at some of the challenges that AI presents to our regulatory infrastructure and our Government. Last week, we heard from the Secretary of State, who assured us that where there is a legislative need, she will bring forward legislation to address the threats posed by AI, although she did not commit to an AI Bill. We are determined to continue to hold her to account on that commitment.
Iqbal Mohamed
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I am grateful for the work that her Select Committee is doing, but I gently suggest that we need representatives from all the other affected Select Committees, covering environment, defence and the Treasury, because AI will affect every single function of Government, and we need to work together to protect ourselves from the overall, holistic threat.
Dame Chi Onwurah
Each of the Select Committees is looking at AI, including the Defence Committee, which has looked at AI in defence. AI impacts every single Department and security on cross-governmental issues. Although we are not talking about the process of scrutiny, we all agree that scrutiny is important.
Iqbal Mohamed
I am glad to hear that.
If the United States and China race to build the strongest systems, let Britain be the nation that ensures the technology remains safe, accountable and under human control. That is a form of leadership every bit as important as engineering, and it is one that our nation is uniquely placed to deliver. This moment will not come again. We can choose to shape the future of AI, or we can wait for it to shape us. I believe that this country still has the courage, clarity and moral confidence to lead, and I invite the Government to take on that leadership role.
Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund
Chi Onwurah Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure to speak to you on this occasion to welcome the ambition behind the life sciences innovation manufacturing fund and, indeed, the Government’s positive support for life sciences, with their belief that Government can act to support industry in general; it is not simply a matter of getting out of the way. That is in sharp contrast to the last Conservative Government’s approach to industry, allowing a gentle decline and deindustrialisation in our nation. To be fair, the series of Conservative Governments chopped and changed their approach to industrial strategy so often it was difficult to know exactly where they stood. Unlike them, Labour is committed to the life sciences sector.
Labour published its plan for life sciences in opposition, which included 10-year funding commitments for key research bodies aimed at putting an end to the short-termism that undermines economic growth and scientific success. Now in government, I welcome Labour’s commitment to the life sciences sector plan—developed in close co-ordination with the Government’s 10-year health plan—which aims to support cutting-edge research and turn that into real-world results, with new treatments, faster diagnoses and more lives saved. It is about making sure that breakthroughs happen here in this country, creating jobs, improving lives in every part of the country and driving growth.
As the Minister said, the life sciences are a strength of our country—they are often described as a jewel in the crown of the British economy—and we all know that success in life sciences leads to positive, wide-reaching benefits across the country for the economy and our health.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
You mentioned the sector’s relevance and benefit to the whole of the United Kingdom. Would you agree that Northern Ireland has a rich manufacturing and life sciences heritage and that we have a huge role to play?
Dame Chi Onwurah
Let me thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which pre-empts something I will say in a few minutes. She is absolutely right: Northern Ireland already plays an important role in the life sciences sector and life sciences manufacturing, and it will have an important role to play in the future.
It is an incredibly exciting time to be involved in life sciences. I often think that if I were a young engineer now—I studied electrical engineering—I would be fascinated by the life sciences and, in particular, synthetic biology, which offers so many potential opportunities for growth and wellbeing. It is an enabling technology across so many different sectors.
In Newcastle, including in my constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, the life sciences contribute £1.7 billion and employ over 8,000 people across more than 200 companies. We are home to the National Innovation Centre for Ageing, Newcastle Helix and The Biosphere. Our city is one star in a constellation of excellent life sciences clusters across the north of England.
I really welcome the ambition of the innovation manufacturing fund. I ask the Minister in his response for more clarity in three particular areas. First, in regard to the size of the fund, in the face of increased competition, and as the shadow Secretary of State described—this will be in less sensationalist terms—we are seeing some reduction in investment in the UK. Is £520 million enough to ensure that the UK is an attractive prospect for internationally mobile businesses? By contrast, a manufacturing plant such as Moderna’s recently opened vaccine centre in Oxfordshire might cost in the region of £150 million to £200 million. Is the fund the right size?
Secondly, the Select Committee recently held a one-off session on life sciences investment, which was of such interest that we have decided to hold another one-off session next week on the same subject. We heard evidence from the pharma sector, including significant support for the life sciences sector plan and for the Government’s approach, but I think it is fair to say that we were told that, although NHS pricing is not the only factor in investment decisions, it is a significant one. We heard evidence that the UK spends less proportionately on medicines than other comparable countries and that that reduces the pull-through for innovative medicines. It would clearly be a difficult decision to spend more on medicines, as that would mean spending less elsewhere in our NHS.
Does the Minister see the manufacturing fund as support in some way for investment decisions in the absence of progress on the NHS pricing discussions? Could he tell us whether the Secretary of State is involved in discussions between the Health Secretary and the pharma sector with regard to NHS pricing? I understand that discussions are ongoing, and I see the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), conferring with him. Perhaps he can confirm that those discussions are ongoing.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
When the Committee held its one-off session on investment in life sciences, did it unearth the reasons why Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Merck have recently chosen to disinvest in life sciences in the UK?
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The Committee’s work is fascinating, so I certainly recommend he read the transcript. To summarise, we were looking specifically at the reasons for investment being pulled and, as I said, we asked the question in a number of different ways. The message that came back was significant support for the life sciences sector plan and the Government approach, but lack of certainty and clarity over NHS pricing and dismay about some aspects of NHS pricing and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decisions. The hon. Gentleman is therefore right to point out that there was concern over the current and likely future pricing of innovative medicines, but that was not the only factor in those investment decisions. I ask the Minister to give us an update on those negotiations to the extent that he is able to do so, and to say whether this manufacturing fund is seen as potential compensation for investment in medicines and pricing as part of the NHS future plan.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some interesting points about investment decisions. Has her Committee also investigated why some decisions have been made to bring investment into the UK, such as the recent decision about investment in Oxfordshire? As part of that, is there a parallel need to explore where more could be done to attract further investment through perhaps greater supply of trained workers, better transport, better access to land for development, and so on?
Dame Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. My Committee has looked at some of the reasons for investments, such as those he sets out, and it is worth emphasising the strengths of the UK, some of which I have mentioned. We have a really strong life sciences sector, and specifically skills at every stage in the UK life sciences ecosystem, together with R&D tax credits, which is another point of incentivisation, and the fact that our NHS offers a fantastic opportunity to test and trial new medicines with a population that is heterogeneous and with population data records that are second to none. So there are many reasons why pharma and life sciences companies are continuing to invest in our country, and we have a fantastic ecosystem of life sciences start-ups and scale-ups.
That brings me to the final question I want to put to the Minister, which is on the regional impact of the fund. The Minister mentioned on a number of occasions that the fund will drive investment and growth across our country. As part of the Committee’s inquiry into innovation and regional growth, we heard of significant disparities in investment, particularly in access to capital and research funding from UK Research and Innovation and in funding and investment between the regions of our country and the greater south-east, otherwise known as the golden triangle. Manufacturing is well distributed across the United Kingdom; we heard earlier about the opportunities in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell me whether there will be a regional dimension to how the funds are disbursed? I hope that the extent to which the funds are regionally distributed will be monitored, but does he expect that this funding will be distributed across the country to drive growth in every corner of the country as he said, and that it will not perpetuate existing regional inequalities?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Digital ID
Chi Onwurah Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is absolutely right to champion access to a consistent, trusted digital ID. All of us online have digital IDs aplenty already—Facebook, TikTok, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Tesco—so she is right to bring the benefits of one digital ID to my constituents. But making digital ID mandatory for everyone seeking work is poking a stick in the eye of all those with security, privacy and/or Government capacity concerns, which my Committee will be examining as part of our work on digital government. For now, though, can she first confirm that people will be in control of their digital ID data and who accesses it? Secondly, will she say whether it will be procured externally from the private sector or developed in-house by Government digital services?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is right to raise the important issues of security—people are rightly concerned about the security of their data, and that is why that will be at the heart of our consultation. In answer to her specific questions: yes, people will control who sees and accesses their data, and we absolutely expect this system to be designed and built within Government, building on the One Login.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chi Onwurah Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
AI is already prevalent in the workplace and in the education system, and we need to equip the next generation to be able to use AI tools productively and securely while also delivering on their unique potential as human beings. How is the Minister working with the Department for Education to ensure that the AI tools that are used in our education system support this kind of learning? Specifically, what advice has she given to the Department with regard to the procurement of edtech tools, which are widely available? Some are free and some need to be paid for, so how are schools to decide which to use?
Feryal Clark
As I have said, I work very closely with my counterparts in the Department for Education. Earlier this year, we launched safe standards for the sector and provided guidance on how to safely develop AI tools for education. The DFE has also provided guidance to schools on how to safely use AI in schools. That work is ongoing. As I have said, we are working both with the sector and with educators to make sure that we get this right.
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
Chi Onwurah ExcerptsTuesday 10th June 2025
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 View all Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 10 June 2025 - (10 Jun 2025)
Chris Bryant
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a few comments, because it is important to respond to some of the questions that have been asked. Two of my hon. Friends referred to the report that the BFI published yesterday. I warmly commend it to all Members, not least because it makes points that others have made about AI, but also because it makes the point that if films and high-end television in the UK are to be successful in the future, we cannot have this critical shortfall in AI education, which is entirely piecemeal at the moment. We know about that in the Department, and it is one of the things that we want to change.
Several Members have asked who will be involved in the various different groups. I want to draw on all the expertise in both Houses to ensure that we can find the right answers. I do not want to undermine anything that the Select Committees might do, jointly or separately, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), I am keen for all the parts of the creative industries to engage in this process. The difficulty is that we might end up with a very large roundtable, and people might have to bear with us when it comes to how we structure that.
Chi Onwurah
I apologise for not being here earlier. I commend the Government for engaging in a cross-party discussion about AI, which is what the country needs to do, but the key issue is ensuring from the beginning that the tech companies understand that transparency in copyright and AI is not a “nice to have” but an absolute requirement, and that if they will not deliver it, the Minister will.
Chris Bryant
We have said from the very beginning that transparency is absolutely key to our ability to deliver the package that we would like to put together, and I do not resile from that, but it is only one part of the jigsaw that we need to join up.
I point out to the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) that some of the items on the amendment paper are things that the two Select Committees asked us to do. She is normally more generous to me, and to others, than she has been today. She has clearly forgotten that the last Government introduced plans that would have produced a text and data mining exemption for commercial exploitation of copyrighted materials without any additional protections for the creative industries. That seems to have slipped her mind.
We have moved a great deal since the introduction of the Bill. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology—who is sitting beside me—and I have moved. We have listened to their lordships, and, more importantly, we have listened to what the creative industries have had to say. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) asked me whether I had ever known anything like this situation. Other bills have gone to five rounds of ping-pong, but in the past the row has always been about what is in the Bill, not what is not in the Bill. This is not an AI Bill, and it will not change the copyright regime in this country. I want that regime to be as robust as it ever has been, so that those in the creative industries can be remunerated and earn a living, as they deserve to. That is precisely what we intend to achieve, but we want to get the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. That is why I need the House to vote with us this afternoon, and I hope that their lordships will agree with us tomorrow.
Question put.
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
Chi Onwurah ExcerptsWednesday 14th May 2025
(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 View all Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 14 May 2025 - (14 May 2025)
Chris Bryant
I will in a second. Then I probably ought to move on to the next subject, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Chris Bryant
Oh dear.
I take very seriously the point that this is not just about people with deep pockets; it is also about individual artists. We want to ensure that they are protected. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Chris Bryant
Of course, I would like to be able to move faster, but as the hon. Gentleman said to me last week in Committee and in various different places, this is not an easy knot to untie. It will require a great deal of goodwill from a large number of people to secure a settled outcome that works for everybody. I still believe that there could be a win-win situation, but that will happen only if we can gather everybody around the same table in order to deliver it. I am perfectly happy to provide leadership, and to be punched in the nose for providing that leadership if people think that I have got it wrong, but I do not think that is the problem at this particular moment.
Let me give the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) one reason why I think Lords amendment 49B does not really work. Yes, we all agree that we should introduce transparency measures—although it is difficult to work out precisely how they would be proportionate and effective and work equally for big and small companies—but there is no point in having transparency measures unless we have an enforcement measure. An element of the proposed new clause refers to enforcement, but it basically asks the Secretary of State to draw up that enforcement. One would not expect to be able to do that in any other area without a full Bill devoted solely to that purpose. I wish that I could move faster, but I do not want to move faster than is required to secure an outcome.
Chris Bryant
I will take only one more intervention, I am afraid, because I have taken so many. I probably ought to give way to the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way, which has made this a real debate. I commend him for his determination to bring together the tech sector and creatives to develop a solution—I know that many creatives are technical, and many technical people are creative. May I urge the Minister to ensure that he works with a wide range of tech companies? As I have said to him, I do not believe that large tech platforms have the right incentives to develop an appropriate tech solution to this, and I urge him to be transparent about how he engages with them.
Finally, the tech platforms refused to appear at a joint sitting of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, but it is through transparency that we can ensure competition to identify the best technical solution.
Chris Bryant
As the hon. Lady knows, I am sympathetic to the direction of travel that she is trying to take me in. Some people will think that I am splitting hairs, and that is not my intention, but I have been keen to avoid the term “opt-out”. As I said, we have brought forward a package of measures. They were reliant on our being able to deliver greater control, through technical measures, for the creative industries and others who had rights to protect. That is why we referred to “rights reservation”, rather than “opt-out”. I take her point, and I am sure that we will be debating it for some considerable time. She is a Select Committee Chair, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah). I should have said earlier that when I was Chair of the Committee of Privileges, we produced a report, which has yet to be implemented or even discussed in the House, about how we could ensure that witnesses appeared before Parliament when Select Committee Chairs wanted them to.
If it is all right with the rest of the House, I will move on to further subjects. The issues around scientific research—I can never work out where the emphasis lies when I say the word “research”—are embodied in Lords amendment 43B. Some people have suggested that the Bill will somehow create a wild west for research, but that is simply not true. The Bill does not change the threshold for what constitutes scientific research; we are sticking with what has been and is a fair, clear and proportionate measure, using the “reasonableness test” that is common in other legislation and well known by the courts.
As Lord Vallance said in the House of Lords earlier this week, this amendment would go against the good work done by the previous Government on avoiding unnecessary red tape for researchers. We have a world-class research sector in the UK. We want to empower it, not tie it up in red tape. We believe that documents such as the Frascati manual, which are useful and interesting in other settings, are not designed to contain legally binding requirements, so the amendment is misplaced.
If the amendment were carried forward, researchers would need to be able to demonstrate their work’s creativity to a legal standard. If someone’s work is aimed at testing or reproducing another researcher’s results, is it truly creative? That is a legitimate question, but it takes on a whole new meaning, and brings a whole new layer of bureaucracy, when enforced to a new legal standard, as the Bill insists, backed up by the potential for huge regulatory fines.
Similar issues arise in relation to requirements for research to be “systematic” and “ethical”. Those words are not necessarily well known in the courts when it comes to this legislation. As Lord Winston argued powerfully on Monday, if the amendment had been law 50 years ago, we may never have had in vitro fertilisation and the benefits spinning off from that, including valuable cancer research. Those are the issues caused by putting such a test in a legally binding setting that it was never designed for.
Chi Onwurah
On the point that Lord Winston made in the other place, will the Minister explain how setting a test for scientific research, so that data could be reused, would have prevented in vitro fertilisation?
Chris Bryant
Lord Winston’s point is that by introducing a requirement that research be systematic, ethical and creative, we are creating a whole new idea of what constitutes research. When he wanted to start his IVF work, it was generally thought that it would be unethical to explore that territory. Today, we would consider that view to be misplaced. We believe that the task of deciding what counts as scientific research is best approached by drawing on guidance and the opinion of experts. That is what the reasonableness test allows. It is a concept that is well understood by the courts. While I sympathise with the intention, expressed in the other place, of guarding against misuse, and while I understand the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West and I have discussed on several occasions, the Government believe that the amendment is unnecessary as the Bill already contains sufficient and, I would argue, considerable safeguards.
A controller who wishes to change the purpose of data processing to scientific research must first ensure that they comply with clause 71’s rules on purpose limitation. Scientific research is not listed as grounds for exemption where data was collected on the basis of consent. Secondly, the controller would have to ensure that they passed a “reasonableness” test; thirdly, they would have to ensure that they had lawful basis; fourthly, they would have to ensure that they met the requirements of the safeguards in clause 86; and fifthly, they would have to ensure that the new processing was fair and complied with the wider data protection principles in UK GDPR. That is a very substantial set of safeguards. The Government cannot see how the Lords amendment would add value, on top of all those requirements against misuse, but it would have an effect on genuine researchers, as I have set out, burdening them with red tape and uncertainty and potentially excluding important research.
Chris Bryant
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not give way again. I will sum up at the end of the debate, so if she wants to raise issues again, I will take interventions then. [Interruption.] I think you would like me to get a move on, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I turn finally to the issue of sex and gender, particularly in the context of the measures on digital verification services. I have tabled amendments to remove the measure that was voted for in the House of Lords on Monday, for reasons that Lord Vallance and I have noted in previous debates. For clarity, the data accuracy principle requires personal data to be accurate and not misleading for the purpose for which it is being used. That safeguard should ensure that personal data shared by public authorities with digital verification services for the purposes of verifying a particular attribute appropriately confirms the specific attribute in question. Public authorities and digital verification service providers are legally required to comply with that principle at different stages of the digital verification process. As I said last week, although it is very unlikely that digital verification services will be used in the kind of cases raised by Opposition Members, the provisions mean that if an organisation requests verification of a person’s sex at birth, the public authority must not share data that records gender more widely for the purpose of that check. Likewise, digital verification service providers must not rely on data that records gender more widely as part of the verification process in that scenario.
This Government recognise that there are instances where sex and gender data appear in the same field in public authority data sets. Existing legislation requires personal data to be accurate for the purpose for which it is being used, which means that personal data processed as part of digital verification checks must reflect the specific requirements of that check. I assure the House that if the Government were to identify an instance in which a public authority was sharing with digital verification services gender data that was mislabelled as biological sex data, we would respond appropriately.
To reiterate, this Government consider the issue of data accuracy to be of importance, and accept the Supreme Court ruling. That judgment and its effects must be worked through holistically, with sensitivity and in line with the law. The Government are already undertaking extensive work on data standards and data accuracy that will consider upcoming updated guidance from the equalities regulator. I do not think it would be appropriate to legislate in the way proposed without having taken those steps, particularly given the sensitive nature of this matter and the potential impact on people’s privacy and human rights.
I finish by noting your opinion, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Lords amendments 49B, 52B and 52C engage the financial privilege of this House, which the Government do not believe it is appropriate for this House to waive. I am sure that the other place will reflect on that carefully during its further consideration of the Bill. I am grateful to all those Members who intervened, and I hope that I have not managed to cut off anybody before their prime.
Chi Onwurah
I rise to speak to Lords amendment 43B, which deals with the safeguarding of scientific research and ensuring that the exemptions in the Bill are used for the purposes of such research alone.
On Second Reading, the Minister was unable to address the points that I raised; he ran out of time because of the length of the debate on AI and copyright, and I rather feel that the same has happened today. In the meantime, however, he wrote to me extensively to address my concerns. Although I do not think all of them were fully addressed, I was convinced that the Minister and, indeed, the Government did not intend this measure to widen the circumstances in which data could be reused for scientific research without consent. I am thinking of circumstances in which data would be reused for the training of AI models which were in themselves not contributing to new, creative scientific research. I believe—let me emphasise this—that all scientific research is creative, and that even if it is simply reproducing existing findings, it is creating confidence in the stock of scientific knowledge. I understand that the Minister does not intend to create a wild west, and I hope that he can confirm specifically that it is not the policy, intention or effect of the provisions to enable the reuse of personal data for AI.
Chi Onwurah
The Minister makes a hand signal, but I am of the view that hand signals are not reflected in Hansard. The Minister has far greater knowledge of proceedings in this House than I do, so I suspect he knows that too. If he would like to intervene on me, I would be very happy for him to do so.
Chris Bryant
I am being very badly behaved. I did not want to take up more time, but I will respond at the end. I think my hon. Friend will be happy.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his inadvertent intervention, and I look forward to my future happiness. Given his reassurances, I think the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee can work with the Government to ensure that the Bill enables scientific research through the use of the fantastic datasets that the UK is proud to have, without exposing the public to the reuse of their data for the purposes of training AI models or for other commercial purposes that are not within the remit of scientific research. I will be pleased to accept the Minister’s reassurances, and on that basis I do not wish to engage in further ping-pong between the Houses.
Pete Wishart
In reference to the earlier exchange, it seems that if you remember the Minister’s 60th birthday, you were not really there—but I really was not there. [Interruption.] Did I? I knew there must have been some very good reason. Why I was not there is now in Hansard.
There is profound disappointment within the creative sector today. Everyone in the sector really believed and hoped that the Minister would appear today with something in his back pocket that he would be able to bring out to give reassurance to the many artists and creators right across the country who are extremely anxious and concerned about the direction of the debate and conversations about the use of their work. They are really concerned that some of their precious work, into which they have put so much time, effort, blood, sweat and tears, will be scraped up, trawled through by a bot and ingested by one of the large American tech companies, and then reappear as some minor mirror of itself.
No one has been satisfied with what has been said today, and the Minister has one last chance. I really hope that he can give something to the creative industries, or at least give them some sort of hope as we go forward into the next few months and years, because they are going into the next few months and years unprotected. They will have nothing that they can rely on, other than what is in the amendments, and I know for a fact that the Minister will ensure that they are voted down.
Today has been a curious day, too, because financial privilege has been invoked for a particular amendment. In my almost quarter of a century in this House, I have never seen that before. I think I know why it has been done: it is to ensure that the House of Lords does not get another opportunity to bring this measure back. I say to the Minister and the Secretary of State, who is shaking his head, that the Lords are already designing it. After it goes back to the House of Lords, it will come back once again. I am sure it does not invoke any financial privilege, but it is ultimately disappointing that the Lords will not be able to present the same motion again, which was their intention. That amendment has received overwhelming support from everybody across the creative sector, and I had really hoped that the Government would support it today.
The only reason we are here is the efforts of the Members of the House of Lords. I usually do not pay them much of a tribute or respect what they do, but they have played a blinder. In particular, Beeban Kidron—Baroness Kidron—has stuck to this agenda to ensure that these Lords amendments have been reinserted into the Bill. They have had to do it because the Government have not done so. The Government have done nothing to ensure that our creative sector is protected.
The Government say that there should be more time for this, but we do not have time. We have to act now to protect the livelihoods of 2.4 million creators in the UK against exploitation by some of the richest companies in the world. As I have said countless times throughout this Bill’s passage, if we continue at this rate there will soon be nothing left to protect. The thing is that the Government should have acted earlier. They should have taken steps to protect creators’ rights as a matter of urgency. Instead, it has been left to others to scramble to find a way to ensure that we had these vital Lords amendments to a Bill that, as the Minister has said on several occasions, was not designed for them.
The Government’s motions will in effect set a timeline of several years before any resolution is reached on copyright transparency. I listened very carefully, as I always do, to what the Minister had to say about transparency, but I still do not understand why this cannot be done immediately. All the Government have to do is tell inventors, creators and copyright holders that their work is going to be used or ingested by one of the web crawlers that are in operation. That is all they would have to do, and it could be done very easily. There is no great technical problem in introducing transparency as a priority, and it could possibly happen within a few weeks.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chi Onwurah Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I really welcome the US-UK trade deal and the fact that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister kept their commitment not to put online safety on the table in those negotiations. My Committee’s inquiry into social media misinformation and algorithms has heard evidence that the algorithms in social media drive the spread of misinformation, and we saw the consequences of that in the summer riots. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as well as not watering down the Online Safety Act, he will look to strengthen it and is discussing how to do so with our allies in the US?
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
Chi Onwurah Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I would like to thank colleagues in the other place and in this House who have worked so hard to improve the Bill. By modernising data infrastructure and governance, this Bill seeks to unlock the secure, efficient use of data while promoting innovation across sectors. As a tech evangelist, as well as the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, I welcome it, and I am pleased to see colleagues from the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), here for this debate.
Having spent many unhappy hours when working for Ofcom trying to find out where British Telecom’s ducts were actually buried, I offer a very personal welcome to the national underground asset register, and I thank the Minister for his work on this Bill as well as for his opening comments.
I agree with the Minister that there is much to welcome in this Bill, but much of the Second Reading debate was consumed by discussion on AI and copyright. I know many Members intend to speak on that today, so I will just briefly set out my view.
The problem with the Government’s proposals on AI and copyright are that they give all the power to the tech platforms who—let us be frank—have a great deal of power already, as well as trillions of dollars in stock market capitalisation and a determination to return value to their shareholders. What they do not have is an incentive to design appropriate technology for transparency and rights reservation if they believe that in its absence they will have free access to our fantastic creators’ ingenuity. It is essential that the Minister convinces them that if they do not deliver this technology—I agree with him that it is highly possible to do so—then he will impose it.
Perhaps the Minister could announce an open competition, with a supplier contract as the prize, for whichever innovative company designs something. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, sitting with the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, heard from small companies that can do just that. The tech giants might not like it, but I often say that the opposite of regulation is not no regulation—it is bad regulation. If the tech platforms do not lead, they will be obliged to follow because the House will not allow the copyright of our fantastic creators to be put at risk. The Minister knows that I think him extremely charismatic and always have done, but I do not believe that “Chris from DSIT” can prevail against the combined forces of Björn from Abba and Paul from The Beatles.
The prospects for human advancement opened by using data for scientific research are immense. As a world-leading science powerhouse, the UK must take advantage of them. That is why, despite being a strong advocate of personal data rights, I welcome the Bill’s proposals to allow the reuse of data without consent for the purposes of scientific research. I am concerned, however, that the exemption is too broad and that it will be taken advantage of by data-hungry tech companies using the exemption even if they are not truly advancing the cause of scientific progress but simply, as with copyright, training their AI models.
Huge amounts of data is already collected by platforms, such as direct messages on Instagram or via web-scraping of any website that contains an individual’s personal data such as published records or people’s public LinkedIn pages. We know it can be misused because it has been, most recently with Meta’s controversial decision to use Instagram-user data to train AI models, triggering an Information Commissioner’s Office response because of the difficulty users encountered in objecting to it. Then there is the risk of data collected via tracking cookies or the profiling of browsing behaviour, which companies such as Meta use to fingerprint people’s devices and track their browsing habits. Could the data used to create ads also be freely reusable under this exemption? The US tech firm Palantir has the contract for the NHS federated data platform. Amnesty International has already raised concerns about the potential for patients’ data being mishandled. Does the Bill mean that our health data could be reused by Palantir for what it calls research purposes?
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Before the hon. Lady moves on from Palantir, I think the House should know that it is an organisation with its origins in the American security state—the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency—and I cannot understand for the life of me why we are willing to commit the data of our citizens to an organisation like that.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I will leave it to the Minister to address his point.
The concern that is probably of most interest to my constituents is reflected in the recent report by The Sunday Times that Chelsea football club claims research and development tax credits. Will the Minister confirm that if Chelsea were to collect data on Newcastle United fans attending an away match at Stamford Bridge, it could be reused for whatever research it is undertaking as a consequence of the exemption?
My amendments 37 and 38 would incorporate into the Bill two clarifications to help reduce the potential misuse of the scientific research exemption. I thank the Ada Lovelace Institute for its help in drafting the amendments. Amendment 37 proposes placing in the Bill a basic definition of scientific research based on the “Frascati Manual” used by the ICO, enabling the “reasonably described” test to be assessed against an objective standard.
Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Minister referred to that briefly, describing it, in relation to AI, as a pipeline where bad data in would mean bad data out. My hon. Friend knows that the definition of sex and gender has been controversial and contested. The Supreme Court brought some clarity and it is important that data collection reflects consistency and clarity. If we have bad data definitions, we will undoubtedly have bad consequences. As I said, it is important that we have consistency and definition when it comes to the collection of data for these purposes, and I look forward to hearing how that will be achieved.
I also want to speak briefly in support of clause 125, which introduces rules allowing researchers to access data from online services for online safety research. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s inquiry into social media algorithms in misinformation heard considerable evidence on the role of algorithms in pushing misinformation generally, and particularly to children. I very much welcome this clause, which will increase transparency, but could the Minister clarify that it will fully cover the recommender algorithms used by social media platforms, which drive new content to users?
My constituents often feel that advances in technology are done to them rather than with them and for their benefit. Critically, our constituents need to feel that they have agency over the way data impacts their lives. Rather than feeling empowered by digital innovation, too many feel the opposite: disempowered, undermined, dehumanised, tracked and even attacked. Delivering the improvements promised by the Bill must therefore go hand in hand with respecting the rights of citizens to control and manage their data and driving innovation and scientific research benefits to them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chi Onwurah Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I applaud the Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls over a decade, even as the vectors for that violence evolve. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee inquiry into harmful social media algorithms has heard how they can drive the adoption of misogynist and extremist views among young men and boys, as powerfully illustrated in the series “Adolescence”. Does the Online Safety Act 2023 give Ofcom the powers to address these harms before they reach the threshold of illegality, and if so, how?
Peter Kyle
I thank my hon. Friend in particular for the work she is doing on behalf of her Select Committee. I am also grateful for the national debate that has been sparked by the programme “Adolescence”. It is incredibly important that we act in these areas. The powers that came in last week to take down illegal content, but also the powers that are coming in later this year in June, will mean that all those publishing content must make sure it is age-appropriate. That will be a step forward. I am watching the impact of these new powers closely, and I will act accordingly if they are not strong enough.