(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberThe largest chunk of broadband delivery will be done on a commercial basis by the private sector. We do not want to do with taxpayers’ money what could probably be done by the commercial sector. I did not catch the name of the village that the hon. Member referred to. I am not sure whether he has been to one of my Building Digital UK drop-in sessions, but if he needs further information for that particular village, I would be very happy to try to sort it.
In my constituency, residents of the rurally isolated community of Balquhidder did not wait for a major provider; they dug and laid 34 km of fibre optic cable themselves using the Government’s broadband voucher scheme to partner with a small business and deliver gigabit broadband—a remarkable achievement. That success is now at risk, however, because for well over a year the Government payment processes have been struggling to engage with the volunteer-led project. Will the Minister meet me to help resolve that, and will he join me on a visit to the beautiful Balquhidder glen to see at first hand what that resourceful and determined community have delivered?
Everybody tells me that Balquhidder is very beautiful—in fact, my hon. Friend told me earlier this morning. I would be interested in a visit if it were also possible to visit the new film studio that I think might be coming to his constituency. Stirling is one matter, but Strathallan and the very wide rural areas in his constituency are different. I would be very happy to try to sort out the specific issues that he has in Balquhidder.
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster 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
I have said before in this place that libraries are the NHS for the soul. They are funded by our taxes, free at the point of use and there when we need them the most. Libraries are no longer just about borrowing books, although that is still reason enough to love them; they are community hubs, digital lifelines, maker spaces, job centres and warm welcomes all in one. They offer a helping hand, a listening ear and a gateway to opportunity. They improve, enrich and inspire us. A library can change a life, whether it is a child discovering a love of reading, an adult learning new skills or someone finding the support they need to turn their life around. Libraries are the crown jewels of our communities. As with anything precious, they deserve to be cherished, protected and given everything they need to thrive.
Yet today, too many libraries are simply trying to survive. Years of being in the crosshairs of local authority budget cuts have taken their toll. But never underestimate a community that hears that its local library is under threat. The quietest places often have the loudest defenders, and they have a formidable arsenal of defensive weapons available—including, of course, paper cuts. Let us remember that libraries are not a luxury: they are a lifeline—a non-negotiable part of community life.
I have loved libraries since I was five, although I admit that a library was also the first place I ever got fined, and the only place where I have accidentally triggered a bomb scare. I like to think that I have got better at using them responsibly since then. One of my earliest memories is being taken to Bannockburn library by my mum, who told me to pick any book I wanted. I remember being overwhelmed by the choice and thrilled by the freedom. I walked out with a book on Roman warships that sparked a lifelong love of history and libraries. I should also admit that I did not walk it back in until well after the book was due, and I got a fine for my trouble. Happily, in Stirling today it has been many years since a Labour-led council did away with library fines, because no one should face a financial penalty for enjoying a book.
When I was 15 and walking home from orchestra practice, I popped into the library and lost track of time. I left my clarinet in its black case under a table. The next day it was sitting at the police station, after being assessed as a potential security threat to the then Secretary of State for Scotland, who had spoken at the community centre that evening. Let us just say that the local sergeant gave me a very firm talking to when I went to collect it.
In Stirling and Strathallan, we are proud of our library heritage. The Leighton library in Dunblane—the oldest purpose-built library in Scotland—has offered books since 1687; the Smith Art Gallery and Museum included a public reading room when it opened in 1874; and Stirling’s first modern public library was opened in 1904, thanks to Andrew Carnegie’s generosity. That spirit lives on today, most recently when 270 donations from local residents funded the award-winning Thomas Graham library in Strathblane.
Across Stirling and Strathallan we have 18 libraries and two mobile library vans, serving almost 70,000 people across almost 2,500 square kilometres. And our libraries are busy, from Bannockburn library’s award-winning maker space to the fantastic Off the Page book festival, which is happening right now in libraries across my constituency. The University of Stirling’s libraries and archives, including the Scottish political archive, remind us that libraries are also stewards of our shared history.
Libraries are free, welcoming and open to all. They are where a child can fall in love with reading, someone can retrain for work, and a lonely person can find connection. In the rush to balance budgets, we must not lose sight of what libraries give us and what we lose if we let them slip away. Libraries are not a luxury; they are a lifeline. Books can open doors, but libraries hold the keys to those doors. Let us not lock the doors on future generations by undervaluing and under-investing in our libraries. Libraries ask for very little and give us everything in return. If we value community, we must value our libraries. Let us protect them, promote them and make sure that they are there—open, welcoming and thriving—for generations to come.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this debate. The Chamber is very well attended, and rightly so; libraries remain at the heart of our communities.
Libraries are more than just books. They offer computer and internet access, host local community groups and provide safe spaces for those who need it. Library staff, supported by volunteers, are pillars of the community. They help those who are most vulnerable, such as the elderly, children and jobseekers. Even throughout the pandemic, libraries adapted to lockdown, and began to provide online services and activities, including e-books. Those services will have supported many families throughout those difficult times, and many would have struggled without them.
I am passionate about all children having access to a quality education, and libraries help to provide that. They provide the environment for children to be curious and have imagination. I am lucky enough to have Harry Potter world in my constituency. JK Rowling’s ability to read previous authors, like the Enid Blytons of the world, would have driven the imagination that allowed her to create the vision that we all enjoy today. Statistics show that about two thirds of children aged 15 visit the library each year in London. They use them in multiple ways by borrowing books, or using computers, printing facilities or study spaces. Nowhere else can offer all those things.
I am lucky enough to have six libraries in my constituency of South West Hertfordshire: Abbots Langley, Chorleywood Community, Croxley Green, Kings Langley Community, Oxhey and Rickmansworth. I am a regular user of those libraries, hiring meetings rooms at Croxley Green to meet constituents and to discuss a library link scheme. Croxley Green is a tier 2 library, meaning it is a community-focused, small library. Its library link scheme allows residents to request specialised research from a librarian. It also ran a slipper project, encouraging elderly people to bring in their old slippers to be replaced with new ones to keep them warm in the winter.
Rickmansworth library has unfortunately been closed for a number of months due to a refurbishment following a fire. Understandably, locals are concerned because they do not have access to the library services. I know that the county council is providing some of those services off site, but I will continue to work with Hertfordshire county council, whoever the new leader is, to ensure that my community keeps the services that it has had over many years. I do not want Rickmansworth library to be one of the 2,276 libraries that have closed since 2016.
Instead of seeing libraries close, we should be seeking plans to open new ones—for example, in Leavesden in my constituency, which does not have a local library. In England and Wales, only 78% of the population are within a 30-minute walk of a public library. We should be investing to increase that percentage. The Conservative Government committed to publishing a public library strategy, which the election unfortunately prevented.
On the location of libraries, certainly in Scotland, there is a statutory duty is to provide a library service. That means that only one library could be provided for my constituency of nearly 2,500 sq km. Does the hon. Member agree that access and proximity to the library in terms of travel time is important to any strategy?
I wholeheartedly agree, especially for some of our more rural communities. There are modern ways of solving that problem, including mobile libraries, which allow communities to have access for a few hours each week to a van that drives around, and books can be pre-ordered via an online system.
Will the Minister commit the Government to publishing a public library strategy? I am sure that members of the wider community would be keen to hear the direction of travel.
I congratulate Hertfordshire library services, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary. We should support all counties to continue offering these services, so that libraries can remain the strong community hubs they have been for so long.
(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberIt fair to say that if we do not work with data, we do not really think about it too much, but, when we do, we realise how much of it surrounds us in multiple forms. Every day in this place I walk past shelves groaning under the weight of volumes of Hansard: an institutional memory of all that has happened here. New technologies offer us an opportunity to take all that knowledge of what has come before and use it to help shape what we do next. Data is a powerful but often underappreciated and undervalued commodity.
The Bill is to be welcomed. I have no doubt that it will help grow the economy, improve public services and make people’s lives easier. However, when it comes to the creative industries, we must recognise that creativity is more than just the sum of its data parts. A novel is not just words, a song is not just notes and lyrics, and a painting is not just pixels or brush strokes. The poems of Robert Burns are not merely letters on a page; they come alive in our minds in a way that no dataset can fully capture. When we treat creative works as nothing more than data points, we risk undervaluing the talent, the skill and the human expression that make them meaningful.
I started my working life as a broadcaster. At 15 years old, I secured a work placement at Central FM, which is still proudly broadcasting independently across the Forth valley. I went for a week and I stayed for 10 years. I presented the breakfast show, dragging myself out of bed at 4.30 in the morning. My parents were more impressed that their teenage son could get up that early than they were about my career choice.
Back then, only 17 radio stations were available in Stirling. Today, my teenage son can stream thousands of stations, podcasts and songs from a device in his pocket. The march of technology is relentless; it can sweep people up or it can sweep people aside. In radio, I saw that march at first hand—first came digitisation, then networking and then automation—and, with each step, jobs disappeared. My last full-time broadcasting job was in 2008. I left because I saw too many friends chasing too few jobs that paid too little money. Now, we are at another turning point.
AI is a powerful tool with huge potential, but it needs vast amounts of data, and that data has enormous value. At a recent Public Accounts Committee evidence session, we heard from academic experts who told us that once we hand over our data, whatever promises are made and whatever covenants are placed on it, we have lost control. If unchecked and unregulated—or regulated improperly—technology and the data it uses does not care whether it makes people’s lives better or worse. We are dealing today with the good and the bad consequences of decisions taken by tech companies and regulators in relation to social media and smartphones. Let us learn from our mistakes, not repeat them.
The amendments proposed in the other place, particularly on copyright and transparency, resonate greatly with me and much of the creative community. I urge colleagues to give them due consideration in the next stage of the Bill’s passage through the House. I was heartened to hear the Secretary of State’s positive comments to that end in today’s debate, and I welcome the Government’s separate consultation on the issue.
There will be other opportunities to consider these points, but the concerns of the creative industries must be heard and acted upon. Copyright protections are not a barrier to AI innovation and competition, but a safeguard for the work of an industry worth £125 billion per year and employing more than 2 million people. We can enable a world where much of this value is transferred to a handful of big tech firms, or we can enable a win-win situation for the creative industries and AI developers, where they work together based on licensed relationships with remuneration and transparency at their heart.
Technology does not care what or who it replaces, but we should. The world needs data scientists, and it also needs poets. Creative workers are right to be nervous about AI further eroding their ability to monetise their work. If we do not act carefully, we risk a future where technology exploits creativity rather than supports it. Data and technology drive progress, but progress must not come at the expense of those who create, innovate and inspire.
AI has immense potential, but without proper safeguards on it and its data, it risks sweeping creative workers aside, or worse, replacing them all together. As we embrace the opportunities that AI and data-driven technologies present, we must ensure that progress does not come at the cost of our creative industries. Human expression cannot be reduced to mere data points. The livelihoods of those who enrich our economy and culture must be protected. It is our responsibility to force innovation while safeguarding the rights of creators. We can build a future where AI enhances human creativity rather than undermining it, and where both well-paid data scientists and well-paid poets thrive in a digital age.
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI have worked in the creative industries all my working life, from helping my father to sell radios and televisions when I was a teenager, to presenting radio shows on stations across Scotland and supporting businesses by creating content for websites. Today, I want to address the disconnect between creativity and cost, and say why we must all support the creative industries with good reviews, warm wishes, and—most importantly—with money.
How many of us use Wikipedia daily but ignore its annual appeals for donations? How many say that we value local journalism yet resent paywalls? In most areas we accept the principle of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, but the creative industries often face a double standard, as many who wouldn’t pocket a bookie’s pencil think nothing of using content without the necessary permissions. Such behaviour is regrettable in individuals, but it is unforgivable in organisations. We can all do better.
For example, if local authorities can pay millions annually for software licences, why not pay a fair rate, not the minimum rate, for creative content? Teachers using streaming services in classrooms, or pupils relying on Wikipedia, could be supported by institutional subscriptions or donations that go to the people or organisations providing the content. Let the public sector lead by example, change how we value and pay for creative content, and strengthen the relationship we have with the creative sector. We should set the example and introduce the legislation that we need AI software providers to follow. In our personal lives, if someone is a podcast listener, they should not always ignore the request for that proverbial cup of coffee or an upgrade to a monthly subscription. If someone sees an article they want to read in a newspaper, they should buy the newspaper, not try to find a pal who will take a picture of it and WhatsApp it to them.
In my career I have seen creative contributions undervalued. Businesses often pay a high proportion of their budget for the technical process of building websites, but neglect the content—the very part that engages users. Too often creators hear, “I can do it myself”, when what is really needed is professional skill. We will struggle to find an artist or artisan who does not have multiple stories of offers of “exposure” or “experience” rather than money as payment for services. Exposure does not pay the bills. If someone would expect to be paid fairly for their work, they should extend the same respect to artists, artisans, writers and designers.
AI offers exciting possibilities for productivity and innovation, much like the smartphone revolution, which is now in its 17th year. AI can help creators clean up poor audio recordings or automate repetitive tasks, allowing them to focus on what they do best. However, we have seen the unintended consequences of the smartphone era, for example on mental health and social development, and we must learn from that. AI is a tool, not a replacement for human creativity, and like any tool it needs oversight and ethical guidance. It needs an instruction manual, preferably not one written by the tool itself.
Before I conclude my remarks I want to highlight a place where we can all go to be creative—a place that can sometimes struggle to be high on our agenda when we are focused on the big, the exciting or the new. I am talking about the local library. Libraries are the NHS for the soul. They are funded by our taxes, and free at the point of delivery and point of need. Libraries offer more than books; they offer a helping hand and a supportive friend, often when people need it most. Libraries improve us, enrich us, and inspire us. A library can make the difference: to a child discovering their love of reading, to an adult learning new skills, or to someone finding the support that they need to change their life. Yet many libraries today focus on surviving rather than thriving, and years of underfunding have left them struggling to provide their essential services. Not everybody has the space, the time, the skills or the hardware to engage with AI, but they will find all that help in the local library, provided by our wonderful librarians and library support staff.
In my constituency, local people are organising against the proposed closure of Auchterarder library in the coming financial year, and in Stirling the music tuition service is facing sweeping cuts. It is difficult to measure inspiration and joy, but it is easy to undervalue them. If we lose music tuition from our schools and libraries from our communities, we will lose parts of our civic soul.
The creators and the industry that supports them add colour and joy to our lives. By valuing creators, compensating them fairly and safeguarding the space and framework in which they operate, we can ensure we have a creative sector that thrives, is valued and adds value to our lives and our economy. We should start from the principle that creative output is linked to its creator and ensure that our laws reflect that, because when creativity flourishes, so does society.