Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Niblett]

I am pleased to speak in this debate in support of new clause 14, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), to which I have added my name. The clause would give our media and creative sectors urgently needed transparency over the use of copyright works by AI models. I am sure that my speech will come as no surprise to the Minister.

I care about this issue because of, not in spite of, my belief in the power of AI and its potential to transform our society and our economy for the better. I care because the adoption of novel technologies by businesses and consumers requires trust in the practices of firms producing the tech. I care about this issue because, as the Creative Rights in AI Coalition has said:

“The UK has the potential to be the global destination for generative firms seeking to license the highest-quality creative content. But to unlock that immense value, we must act now to stimulate a dynamic licensing market: the government must use this legislation to introduce meaningful transparency provisions.”

Although I am sure that the Government’s amendments are well meant, they set us on a timeline for change to the copyright framework that would take us right to the tail end of this Parliament. Many in this House, including myself, do not believe that an effective opt-out mechanism will ever develop; I know it is not in the Bill right now, but it was proposed in the AI and copyright consultation. Even if the Government insist on pursuing this route, it would be a dereliction of duty to fail to enforce our existing laws in the intervening period.

Big tech firms claim that transparency is not feasible, but that is a red herring. These companies are absolutely capable of letting rights holders know whether their individual works have been used, as OpenAI has been ordered to do in the Authors Guild v. OpenAI copyright case. Requiring transparency without the need for a court order will avoid wasting court time and swiftly establish a legal precedent, making the legal risk of copyright infringement too great for AI firms to continue with the mass theft that has taken place. That is why big tech objects to transparency, just as it objects to any transparency requirements, whether they are focused on online safety, digital competition or copyright. It would make it accountable to the individuals and businesses that it extracts value from.

The AI companies further argue that providing transparency would compromise their trade secrets, but that is another red herring. Nobody is asking for a specific recipe of how the models are trained: they are asking only to be able to query the ingredients that have gone into it. Generative AI models are made up of billions of data points, and it is the weighting of data that is a model’s secret sauce.

The Government can do myriad things around skills, access to finance, procurement practices and energy costs to support AI firms building and deploying models in the UK. They insist that they do not see the AI copyright debate as a zero-sum game, but trading away the property rights of 2.4 million UK creatives—70% of whom live outside London—to secure tech investment would be just that.

There are no insurmountable technical barriers to transparency in the same way that there are no opt-outs. The key barrier to transparency is the desire of tech firms to obscure their illegal behaviour. It has been shown that Meta employees proactively sought, in their own words,

“to remove data that is clearly marked as pirated/stolen”

from the data that they used from the pirate shadow library, LibGen. If they have technical means to identify copyright content to cover their own backs, surely they have the technical means to be honest with creators about the use of their valuable work.

I say to the Minister, who I know truly cares about the future of creatives and tech businesses in the UK—that is absolutely not in question—that if he cannot accept new clause 14 as tabled, he should take the opportunity as the Bill goes back to the Lords to bring forward clauses that would allow him to implement granular transparency mechanisms in the next six to 12 months. I and many on the Labour Benches—as well as the entire creative industries and others who do not want what is theirs simply to be taken from them—stand ready to support the development of workable solutions at pace. It can never be too soon to protect the livelihoods of UK citizens, nor to build trust between creators and the technology that would not exist without their hard work.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

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

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I rise to support new clauses 2 to 5 in the name of the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins); to pay tribute to Baroness Kidron, who has driven forward these amendments in the other place; and to speak in favour of new clause 20 in the name of the official Opposition.

I am beginning to sound a bit like a broken record on this matter, but our creative industries are such a phenomenal UK success story. They are our economic superpower and are worth more than automotive, aerospace and life sciences added together, comprising almost 10% of UK registered businesses and creating nearly 2.5 million jobs. More than that, our creative industries have so much intrinsic value; they underpin our culture and our sense of community. Intellectual property showcases our nation around the world and supports our tourism sector. As a form of soft power, there is simply nothing like it—yet these social and economic benefits are all being put at risk by the suggested wholesale transfer of copyright to AI companies.

The choice presented to us always seems, wittingly or unwittingly, to pit our innovative AI sector against our world-class creative industries and, indeed, our media sector. It is worth noting that news media is often overlooked in these debates, but newspapers, magazines and news websites license print and content online. In turn, that helps to support high-quality and independent journalism, which is so vital to underpinning our democratic life. That is essential considering recent news that the global average press freedom score has fallen to an all-time low.

I want to push back against the false choice that we always seem to be presented with that, somehow, our creative industries are Luddites and are not in favour of AI. I have seen time and again how our creators have been characterised by big tech and its lobbyists as somehow resistant to technological progress, which is of course nonsensical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that very serious point. When the clinicians—whose duty is to protect their patients—say they are not convinced about the safety of data being handed over to a central database, we have to listen to their reactions.

I do not intend to press my new clause to the vote, but it is important that we continue to debate this matter, because this enormous database—which can contribute to the general welfare of all humanity—must be protected in such a way that it retains confidence and ensures the security of the whole system. With that, I leave the discussion to continue on other matters.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Pete Wishart.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you ever so much, Madam Deputy Speaker—other matters we shall attend to.

I speak in support of new clauses 2 to 6 and new clause 14, which I enthusiastically support. I believe that those new clauses represent our very last chance to guarantee at least a bit of security for our creative industries in the face of what can only be described as the almost existential threat posed by generative AI. This is critical. I listened to the Minister very carefully, but this lackadaisical approach and the progress he is intending do not properly reflect the scale of the threat and challenge that our creative industries are currently confronted with. I accept that we have come a long way in this debate, and I accept the positive tone the Minister tries to take when dealing with these issues. I believe that he is sincere about trying to find a solution—he wants to get to a place where both the AI companies and the creative industries are satisfied. I am not entirely sure that we will get to that place, but I wish him all the best in those efforts.

We have certainly come a long way since the first statement we had in this House. I am sure that hon. Members will remember the belligerent way in which the Secretary of State presented that first statement— I am surprised that he is not here today. He was almost saying to the creative industries that they had to take it on the chin in order to satisfy this Government’s attempts to find some economic growth—which they have so far found elusive—in the shape of unfettered artificial intelligence, and that we should just get on with that agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. From the next speaker, there will be a five-minute time limit.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

As many Members will be aware, my constituent Ellen Roome knows only too well the tragedies that can take place as a result of social media. I am pleased that Ellen joins us in the Gallery to hear this debate in her pursuit of Jools’ law.

In 2022, Ellen came home to find her son Jools not breathing. He had tragically lost his life, aged just 14. In the following months, Ellen battled the social media giants—and she is still battling them—to try to access his social media data, as she sought answers about what had happened leading up to his death. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), for raising this in his speech. In her search for answers, Ellen found herself blocked by social media giants that placed process ahead of compassion. The police had no reason to suspect a crime, so they did not see any reason to undertake a full investigation into Jools’ social media. The inquest did not require a thorough analysis of Jools’ online accounts. None of the social media companies would grant Ellen access to Jools’ browsing data, and a court order was needed to access the digital data, which required eye-watering legal fees.

The legal system is unequipped to tackle the complexities of social media. In the past, when a loved one died, their family would be able to find such things in their possession—perhaps in children’s diaries, in school books or in cupboards. However, now that so much of our lives are spent online, personal data is kept by the social media giants. New clause 11 in my name would change that, although I understand that there are technical and legal difficulties.

The Minister and the Secretary of State met Ellen and me this morning, along with the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), and we are grateful for the time they gave us. My new clause will not go to a vote today, but we will keep pushing because Ellen and other parents like her should not have to go through this to search for answers when a child has died. I understand that there are provisions in the Bill that will be steps forward, but we will keep pushing and we will hold the Government’s and all future Governments’ feet to the fire until we get a result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Many people wish to speak in this debate, so before I call the next speaker I ask Members please to be mindful when taking interventions. I will now impose a four-minute time limit.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

We live in a rapidly changing world. Like everyone else, I am sure that I am guilty of handing my data to organisations every hour of every day, oblivious to the impact on my privacy. I am also guilty of absorbing and using content assuming that it is trustworthy and that it has been obtained fairly.

On the other hand, my generation has been fortunate to have seen the introduction of social media and the online world, and to have experienced the time before it, which perhaps provides us with a level of scepticism about what we see, and an ability to switch it off and distance ourselves from the onslaught to our senses that digital content can provide.

Like other interventions of the past, we are now at a crossroads where we must pause and not simply plough on. The Bill gives us the opportunity to make it clear to the tech giants that we are not giving them everything that we have created, that they cannot own our children, and that we value our data as part of our identity.

Some of the amendments give us a great opportunity to improve the Bill—to make the most of this moment in time and to make sure that we do not leave people behind. We know that children’s brains continue to develop until they are in their early 20s. We know that young people’s development leads them to be risk takers in their adolescence and teenage years, and, as adults, we sometimes have to take decisions to curtail their fun to protect them. My own children have enjoyed social media from the age of 13, but, as the sector develops, and our understanding of its addictive nature improves, it is critical that we reflect that in law. Lifting the age of consent for social media data collection, as in new clause 1, will help to protect our children at the time they need it.

It is unimaginable to lose a child and to do so in the circumstances where the reasons behind their death are unclear, which is why I signed new clause 11 tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), which would allow bereaved parents access to their child’s social media content. This should not be necessary given that GDPR and privacy rights do not apply to those who have died. The fact that we even need such legislation calls into question the motivation of tech giants and tells us where their interests lie. I urge the Government to support this and welcome the assurance today that more work will be done.

Trust is at an all-time low not only in the Government but in other authorities such as the NHS. As AI changes how we interact with the state, commerce and each other, the public should have a right to know how and when AI is involved in the decisions made. Transparency matters, which is why I am supporting the new clauses proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins). We know that if we use each other’s content we must pay for it, or at least credit it if we are not profiting from it. We know that if we do not, we infringe that copyright, so why should tech giants, probably based in some far-flung place, have a right to scrape that content without knowledge or payment? The idea that they even need to train their systems off the backs of people who have used their talent and time and made their living through creativity is obscene.

I really must speak strongly against new clause 21. I have been overwhelmed by the scale of distress brought about by this awful proposal. It is cruel and it completely undermines the privacy of people who are transgender at a time when they are already feeling victimised.

Those who have transitioned socially, medically or surgically are protected in law, and we were told that the Supreme Court decision last month does not change that. But new clause 21 does. If it were passed, sex at birth would be recorded on a driving licence or passport, outing every trans person whenever they buy an age-restricted product, change their job, travel abroad, or even come to Parliament to visit their MP. Not only is this a fundamental breach of privacy, but it is potentially dangerous. They would be prevented from travelling to countries with poor records on rights, and they would be at higher risk of suicide and self-harm than they already are. A constituent said,

“This is a direct attempt to erase me from the public record.”

Please reject this new clause 21.

[Ms Creasy]

In the short time available to me, I want to speak to four amendments. On two of them, I would like to urge the Minister to think again. On one, I am in total agreement with the Minister that we should oppose it; the other is one that I want to draw to the House’s attention.

First, I join the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah), my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) and the indomitable Baroness Kidron, who joins us today from the Gallery, in encouraging the Minister to look again at amendments on AI and copyright. We know that this problem will come back and that we need to move at pace.

I represent Walthamstow, the home of William Morris, the creators and makers—and creatives abound. At least William Morris could protect his wallpaper patterns. With the AI technologies we see now moving so quickly, unless we stand up for British copyright technology, we will be in a very different place. The Minister says that if we do not pass new clause 2, we will still have copyright law tomorrow, and he is right, but we will not have the tools to deal with the technology we are dealing with now.

This issue is about not just the Elton Johns, the Ed Sheerans, the Richard Osmans or the Jilly Coopers, but the thousands of creators in our country—it is their bread and butter. Nobody is opposing technology, but they are saying that we need to act more quickly. I hope to hear from the Minister what he will do in this area. New clause 14, which has not been selected, is about the question of transparency and will help creatives exercise their rights.

Briefly, I want to support what the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) said about new clause 21. I have always supported the appropriate collection of data, but this is not an appropriate collection of data. It is a targeting of the trans community, which is deeply regressive.

I praise the Government for what they are doing with schedule 11—and I wager that nobody else in this Chamber has looked at it. The Victims and Prisoners Act received Royal Assent in May 2024. Section 31 of the Act provides a mechanism to delete data that has been created as part of a malicious campaign of harassment. Schedule 11 is a technical amendment to GDPR laws that will make that Act, which got cross-party support, possible to enact.

For parents and carers, the thought that someone who disagrees with them might use the auspices of social services to try to remove their children because of that disagreement is impossible to comprehend. It is a nightmare that I have lived through myself. Thanks to my local authority, I am still living through it, because the record created by the person who did this to me remains on the statute book, along with the allegation that I am a risk to my children because of the views that I hold.

The primary intent of the man who made this complaint was to trigger an investigation into my private life. The judge who convicted him of harassment said that it was one of the worst examples of malicious abuse in public life that he had seen. The judge demanded that the file be stricken, as did I when it first came to light and when the man was subsequently convicted of harassment. However, Waltham Forest council continue to argue that they have to retain that data to protect my own children from me. This is an example not of how data is used to safeguard but how data can be used to harm by its existence. It is not a benign matter to have such a record associated with one’s name. Anyone who has ever been to A&E knows that the question, “Is your child known to social services?” is not a neutral inquiry. Not having a way of removing data designed to harass will perpetuate the harassment.

My local authority has not labelled the fathers who are MPs in my borough in the same way, but it argues that it must retain this data about me under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, regarding children who might reasonably be considered at risk of harm from an individual. To add insult to injury, the council has not offered to delete this data but told me that I can add to it a note to dispute the claims by the person who has been convicted of harassing me about my fitness to be a parent, and then the council might consider including the note—add more data to a file, therefore, rather than remove it. That will keep the link between me, my family, these allegations and the gentleman who harassed me in the first place. I have never received any form of apology or acknowledgement.

There have always been strong grounds and legal processes to remove malicious records. It is also right that we set a high bar, as the 2024 Act did. This consequential amendment in the Bill should now mean that the Government can use the affirmative resolution to make that law a reality. We cannot delete the misogyny at the heart of Waltham Forest council’s response, but we could finally delete the records and those of others like them and move on with our lives—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Steff Aquarone.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

My new clause 7 would ensure that, alongside the creation of a digital verification framework, there would be a right to use non-digital ID. Digital exclusion is a major challenge for many communities around the country, including in North Norfolk. Part of the answer is to improve digital education and bring those numbers down, but, as Age UK rightly says,

“it will never be possible to get everyone online.”

The progress we make in the digital age must ensure provision for those who will not be supported by it, or that they are not left behind or excluded.

Older people are not the only ones who struggle with digital exclusion—poverty is also a significant driver. A study in 2021 showed that more than half those who are offline earned less than £20,000 a year. The Government told the Lords that if it turned out that people were being excluded, they could consider legislating, but how many people earning less than £20,000 a year will be taking a business through the courts—perhaps as far as the Supreme Court—to secure their rights? Why are we waiting for it to go wrong, placing the onus on vulnerable people to generate test cases and legal precedent when we could put this matter to bed once and for all with this simple addition to the Bill?

I will also speak in support of new clause 1. It has become abundantly clear to us all that we cannot trust the social media giants to keep our children safe. In fact, I would go as far as to say that they have very little interest in keeping children safe. The algorithms that drive these platforms, which are designed to keep users scrolling for as long as possible to maximise ad revenue, can be deeply damaging to children and young people. It is important to emphasise just how pervasive the content stream can be. Not every hon. Member may have experienced it, but pervasive, targeted content is not the same as a child seeing something distressing on the news. Once seen—if only fleetingly—there is the potential for them to be exposed to unsubstantiated, misleading or even traumatic content, or versions of that content, over and over again every few swipes as the algorithm realises it can suck them in, keep them scrolling and make profit for its social media giants. That is not what social networks set out to do, but it is what they have become.

Whatever the social media giants told the Government or the Opposition, whether “It is too complex,” “It would cost too much,” or, “The flux capacitor is not big enough,” that is just rubbish. If we simply removed the right to process personal data for under 16s, we would remove the algorithms’ ability to target them with content based on what they say and do. If the social networks cared about children’s wellbeing, they would have done that already. I hope that today we will finally take the action necessary to protect the next generation.

Overall, my views on the Bill remain broadly similar to the frustrations I expressed months ago on Second Reading. There is important, commendable and sensible stuff in the Bill, and I welcome that, but what is not in the Bill is more frustrating, as it could have put it in a much better position to harness the power of data. We could have addressed the litany of failures in public sector data use that the Government’s own review outlined just months ago. We could be equipping our civil service and public sector with the talent, culture and leadership to make us a global trailblazer in data-driven government. It is really frustrating that the Bill does not contain any of the steps necessary to make those improvements.

If we use data better, we do government better. I am sure that the whole House and all our constituents are keen to see that.

Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lola McEvoy]

It has been very interesting to be part of this campaign, and I think there is a lot more to do.

There are other areas that we must urgently take action on, from going forwards with the second iteration of the children’s code to ensure that functionalities are included, to upgrading the requirement for risk assessments to make them more dynamic and supporting bereaved families.

To conclude, I am incredibly grateful to all those who have supported the Bill—to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington for his incredible work, to Ben Kingsley for his excellent expertise, and to my wonderful constituents in Darlington, who have put me here to represent them, improve their lives and help them to protect their children. This Christmas just gone, I was at a carol concert at the Crown Street library in Darlington, and a man tapped me on the shoulder, pointed at his beautiful child, who was looking up at me and beaming, and said, “Keep going on the online safety. You’re doing it for her.” I am, and I will continue to do so. I urge our Government to get on with it and to take as much action as we reasonably can within the timeframe that we have.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Fookes]

Thank you so much for giving way. Do you agree that, although this point has not come across in the debate, we all meet the most incredible young people every day in our constituencies, and we must congratulate them on the amazing things they do—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions must be very short at this point, and please do not to refer to each other as “you”.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

I join the hon. Lady in congratulating young people on their work.

I say as a father that we must act now to reduce the harm caused to two current generations of children and never expose future generations to those harms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

It is a point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder if you could give us guidance as to whether we actually have the right Minister responding to this Bill. If there were negotiations with the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) about the Bill, one would expect the Minister who had conducted those negotiations, and who was therefore able to speak to the decisions that have been made, to appear at the Dispatch Box. Have we got the right person?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. However, that is not a matter for the Chair. It is entirely up to the Government to decide which Minister they put up to speak.

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid you will have to put up with me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) referred to the fear of missing out, which is such a potent aspect of many young people’s lives. It had its previous version before digital arrived, but it is so much more acute now, and it cuts in so many different ways at the same time. She also referred to Ellen Roome and the issues in the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which we will discuss in the Public Bill Committee next Tuesday and Thursday, and then on Report in a few weeks’ time. I look forward to her contributions.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), with whom I cannot compete for youth, made a very important point: one of the positive effects that social media can introduce, and which was not available to me when I was trying to work out, at the age of 15 or 16, whether I was gay, is that there is a diaspora—there are other worlds where there are people a bit more like me. That is a release for many young people, so being able to harness what is good in social media, and to lose what is bad, is the key task for us.

Nothing could matter more than the mental, physical and spiritual health of our young people. There are many aspects to that health, including addiction to alcohol, drugs, gambling and, I would argue, as many others have done today, smartphone use. Harmful messages about body image, violent and risky sex, radicalisation, bullying, self-confidence and taking one’s own life are all part of that. Physical health is, of course, part of mental and spiritual health. As many Members have mentioned, getting out and about, eye-to-eye contact and brain development all matter. Let us be absolutely clear: excessive smartphone use is engaged in all aspects of mental, spiritual and, I would argue, physical ill health.

Algorithms can be set to increase addictive scrolling. Apps with weak age verification processes expose children to completely inappropriate material. The business model for some tech companies is not always conducive to children’s health. We also have to consider the benefits of limited, rather than excessive, use of smartphones. A lot of modern life is accessed online, including homework. Social media can gather diaspora, but that too can be a minefield.

If hon. Members have not seen “Under the Volcano”, which is a Polish film about a Ukrainian family stuck in Tenerife at the point of Putin’s second invasion of Ukraine three years ago, they should watch it, because the children in the film are absolutely terrified of what social media is going to tell them about what is happening back at home. I am also conscious that for some neurodiverse youngsters, social media is an absolutely vital means of ensuring their health.

We fully recognise the difficulties facing parents, teachers and youth workers in adjudicating rows, as has often been referred to. Teachers know that they are part of a child’s life for only 20% of their time, so the social expectations on parents are just as important as anything else. I fully recognise the complaint that I hear regularly from young people in my constituency: “There’s nothing else to do around here.” A hundred years ago, in every one of our constituencies, there would have been youth clubs, Scouts and Guides, and lots of different organisations that specifically catered for young people to do active things outside the home. Many of those things barely exist today, and that is part of what we need to look at.

Let me talk specifically about what we will do and what we are doing. I wish that the Online Safety Act 2023 had been introduced in 2020, 2021 or 2022, because it was far too delayed. It is extremely frustrating for Ministers that it has taken so long to get to this point. We are working with Ofcom to implement every element of the Act as fast as we can, but some elements are written into the Act itself. The Secretary of State wrote to Ofcom on 16 October last year to say that we want to implement everything as fast as we can, while taking on board the criticisms that some people have made of Ofcom.

The illegal content codes have now passed parliamentary scrutiny and will come into force this month; I hope that will produce some change. The draft children’s safety codes which have been referred to are nearly finalised. The child safety regime will be in effect by the summer, which is good news, and the Online Safety Act itself, in section 178, says that it must be reviewed. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has launched its own feasibility study of the impact of smartphones and social media use, which will report in May. It is being run by the University of Cambridge and a consortium of experts. We hope that the Bill will help us to build on that feasibility study, so that we have the information that we need to take a considered view. We will work to roughly the same timetable as the one for which the Bill provides. The closer we can get to a causal and direct relationship between smartphone use and mental health issues, and to clear evidence of the best, most effective, and most appropriate and proportionate intervention by the Government, the better.

We are introducing further measures in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. Under clauses 91, 124 and 81, new requirements for the design of processing activities by information society services likely to be accessed by children, so that they can be protected and supported, will make a significant difference.

The Bill’s recommendations chime very much with what we intend to do, and are helpful in that direction. Of course we want the Online Safety Act to bed in; of course we want to implement the data Bill and those new provisions; of course we want to conduct fuller, more authoritative research and provide clear advice for teachers and parents across the land; and of course this is not the end of the matter. I shall be amazed if there is not further legislation in this area in the coming years. I commend the campaigners who have made such a strong case to us, via my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington.

The words of the paediatrician mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) are ringing in my mind. There is no option of inaction for this House or this country. There has to be action, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington for introducing the Bill today.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jeff Smith.)

Debate to be resumed on Friday 11 July.

Point of Order

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hansard will confirm that during questions to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology earlier today, the Secretary of State—who is in his place—said that no Conservative Ministers had met AstraZeneca representatives following the announcement of a £450 million investment to expand its Merseyside vaccine facility. The Secretary of State is wrong. Publicly available transparency data from the Treasury and the Secretary of State’s own Department confirm that meetings did take place between AstraZeneca and my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), the then Chancellor, and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). May I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what to do, and may I offer the Secretary of State the opportunity to apologise and correct the record for the House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for giving me notice of it. I trust that he notified the Secretary of State of his intention to raise it. Should the Secretary of State feel that the record needs to be corrected, there are processes whereby he may do so, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.

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

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why detain the House? Why don’t I just apologise now, and correct the record? I am grateful to the hon. Member for alerting me to that information. I am happy to correct the record, and I am happy to apologise to him for saying what I said earlier. I should also correct the thrust of my argument this morning, which was that there was insouciance during the period between the March statement and the general election in July. Actually, it was not insouciance; it was just incompetence that meant they could not get the deal across the line.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Secretary of State.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Carling]

The hon. Lady makes her point well, and we have already heard from the Minister about the rationale behind those clauses. There are real issues with putting such measures through in secondary legislation, because this House should have more ability to scrutinise them. We know there is a consultation at the moment, and we have heard from the Secretary of State that he is very open to having a conversation on this issue and making sure that we address it. I am sure we all agree that we need to do that properly.

On safeguards, the Bill makes it very clear that where an organisation makes automated decisions, an individual has the right to a proper explanation of those decisions and the right to make representations about the decision taken, to obtain human intervention and to contest the automated decision. Those are really robust safeguards, but they are key provisions that must be shown to work in practice. We cannot enter a situation in which automated decisions are made wrongly, with no recourse. I strongly support the Bill and these safeguards, but I note that the British Medical Association has raised concerns around clause 77 and clause 70. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response to those concerns around diluting protections for health data held by non-public bodies. I am sure that he has a response, and it would be good to hear it.

To wrap up, the innovative use of data, following strict guidelines and data protection rules, will massively improve the efficiency of public services and grow our economy. It is right that the Government take this route. The UK should be leading the way in innovative technology and fully utilising technological developments to improve people’s lives, and I believe that this Bill will do that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Creative Industries

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse]

I congratulate Taunton town council on putting that money into the arts. That is absolutely what is needed, but many councils struggle to balance the books and have to make very difficult decisions.

To deliver on the full potential of the UK’s competitive advantage in the arts and entertainment, additional public investment is required. We need to understand why we are so far behind the rest of Europe in terms of funding and take urgent action to correct that. Core funding is key to the resurgence of Bath’s creative sector, and of creative industries across the country. I hope this new Government can turn the page on the constant cuts to our creative industries and ensure that every community has a vibrant creative sector for all to enjoy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, not least because I spent many years working in publishing before I came to this place. I have the honour of serving on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and I am a former ambassador for Xbox, which is possibly the only time my son thought I was cool.

Recently, I visited Barton Peveril, a consistently successful local sixth-form college in my constituency, where many students have a keen interest in the creative industries. For all those students and the thousands of young people across the UK who want to pursue careers in film, music, video games, TV, fashion, architecture, design and, of course, publishing, it is vital that those sectors are supported. Yet over the past 14 years, there has been a 47% drop in students taking arts-related GCSEs and a 29% decline at A-level. Universities are also slashing creative courses; at least 14 institutions are cutting arts funding or merging departments. That is hugely concerning. Arts education fosters ingenuity, critical thinking and innovation, which are skills that benefit all industries. We must protect arts education and funding.

For those talented performers who want to share their work, Brexit red tape continues to make it unnecessarily difficult for performers and artists to tour in Europe. The complex visa and permit requirements stifle opportunities for British talent to showcase their work abroad, and independent musicians are among those hardest hit. Touring has become increasingly hard because of the mountain of bureaucracy now involved. Musicians face navigating different visa rules for each EU country and financial burdens that make tours unviable for many. I sincerely hope that will be addressed.

As we have heard, AI poses a growing threat, and Sir Paul McCartney and Sir Elton John are right to have concerns about that issue. While AI offers exciting opportunities, it must not come at the expense of our talent. Recent reports that The Guardian used AI to produce stories during industrial action are concerning. Can the Minister outline what steps the Government will take to ensure that AI serves and enhances the creative industries, rather than undermines them? The Association for UK Interactive Entertainment has highlighted the need for better support to ensure that the gaming industry, which is growing rapidly, can continue to thrive. Sector-wide job losses and the rise of AI replacing creative roles are putting studios under immense pressure. As a global leader in video game creation, it is vital that we protect this sector.

To ensure that Britain remains a global leader in creativity, we need continued safeguarding of copyright, investment in arts education, and more support for grassroots venues. We should be proud of our creative industries, so let us work together to ensure that they continue to be world class. I hope that the Government will provide the ambition, investment and vision needed to ensure that the creative industries continue to thrive.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Technology in Public Services

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I welcome him to his place. It is good to see him participating in these debates. It gives me the opportunity to respond to his question. He asks why I cut something. Can I just point out to him that I cannot cut something that did not exist in the first place? We have a former Prime Minister who announced a scheme but allocated not a single penny towards it. We have a former Chancellor of the Exchequer who at this Dispatch Box in his last Budget announced a scheme, but did not go back to his Department and allocate a single penny towards it. I did not cut anything, because nothing existed in the first place. Words matter when you are in government, and they must be followed through with action. I am afraid that the previous Government were all words and no action.

That is why we will be bringing forward binding regulations on the handful of companies that are developing the most powerful AI systems of tomorrow. The principle behind both pieces of legislation is simple: trust. We will rebuild Britain’s public services. Public trust in technology will be our cornerstone. To earn that trust, we will always put people’s safety first. We must also show that technology can be a force for good, and that is what we will do. Every person who receives the kind of scan my mother did not receive, every family with years longer together, every child with an education that gives them the opportunities their parents never had—every one of those people is a testament to the power of technology to change lives for the better. And yet for each of those people there are so many more who are missing out on an education that could change their life, or on the scan that could save it. By closing the technology gap, this Government will ensure that every person benefits from the digital public services that they deserve, and we will give Britain’s future back.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend has made an important point, and he is right: this is a director general-level appointment in the civil service, second only to that of the permanent secretary and one of, I believe, only three director general-level appointments in the entirety of the Secretary of State’s Department. This is someone with the power to hire and fire and advance and promote civil servants, and someone—[Interruption.] This is an important point. Once this Rubicon has been crossed, once the civil service has political—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Will Members make their remarks to the Chamber rather than exchanging them across the Benches?

[Andrew Griffith]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will make some progress. I understand that colleagues will want to move on to other points, but this is a very important point. Once this Rubicon has been crossed, it will not be possible to un-bake that cake of an independent civil service. Imagine the ambitious civil servants—the directors, the directors general—who never even had the chance to be considered for this role!

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and for highlighting the lack of progress by the last Conservative Government—and indeed their failure to roll out acceptable digital infrastructure across our country.

Good news stories about technology have been replaced by tech horror stories—about workers imprisoned unfairly because of Post Office software failures, and about students being treated unfairly by exam algorithms. This entrenches opposition to technology. Too many of my constituents feel that they are being tracked, monitored, surveilled and analysed. They do not want to go online without feeling safe and secure.

Work by the Collective Intelligence Project highlights that safety, participation and progress must go hand in hand, because only public confidence in AI will enable us to drive adoption in public services and improve productivity. That is why the Government are so right to emphasise safe deployment. Pre-deployment evaluation of foundation models by our world-leading AI Safety Institute will boost public confidence, and provide transparency about when AI is used in the public sector, and how it will help to maintain trust.

I have worked in technology deployment for many years, and bitter experience has led me to the conclusion that whatever the problem might be, technology is not the answer on its own. You cannot force technology on people. Co-creation is an overused term but an underused reality, so engagement, participation and partnership working need to be part of the plans for adoption. The group Connected by Data has great examples of this type of participatory decision making. Camden Council, which was led until recently by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), has done excellent work in this regard.

I am sure that I do not need to tell the House that AI is the subject of hype as well as hope. In partnership with the What Works centres, we need to evaluate different uses of AI in our hospitals and schools, for example, so that we can scale up the most cost-effective solutions while avoiding expensive failures. The private sector has driven the adoption of so many of the technologies that have transformed our lives, but we must build state capacity in tech by recruiting more diverse science and technology experts to the civil service, so that Government can innovate. We need fair, open and transparent procurement processes that will enable British start-ups as well as big tech companies to bid for Government contracts.

Given the previous Government’s responses to my parliamentary questions, I am concerned that our digital infrastructure may be too dependent on single or dual suppliers, or on proprietary systems. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that, and the role of start-ups and open source in ensuring resilience. Digital inclusion was neglected by the previous Government. Age UK estimates that around a third of over-75s—that is 1.7 million people—do not use the internet. We must tackle the barriers, which include infrastructure availability, cost and the skills gap, but we also need to recognise that some people may never be comfortable with digital access to Government services.

Finally, we should remember that we too are a public service. I have raised the adoption of technology in this place many times. Indeed, I worked closely with the House authorities during covid to deliver a remote Parliament by introducing Zoom into the Commons. We must lead by example when it comes to adopting technology to improve our performance. I am standing to be Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee because this is so important to all our constituents, but they often feel that technology is something that is done to them, rather than with them and for them. The benefits of technology have not been shared fairly. Under a Labour Government, this will change, and public services will lead the way.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Layla Moran.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to begin this new parliamentary term debating the role of technology in public services. I start by extending a special welcome to the friends and family in the Gallery eagerly waiting for the many maiden speeches to be made this evening; I will be brief. You can start timing me if you wish, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Under the Conservatives, Britain’s public services have steadily deteriorated, with insufficient investment across the board. Schools, hospitals and prisons are literally crumbling, and transport projects were axed on a ministerial whim. In a cost of living crisis, when people are looking desperately to public services for support, tackling the big challenges in our public services is absolutely essential.

I am a technophile. I am a former science teacher. I spent most of my childhood buried in science fiction, and you can draw a straight line from “Star Trek” to where I am standing now. That is “Star Trek, the Next Generation”, in case anyone was wondering. So today I will focus primarily on the positives, but if we want buy-in from the public, we need to show the public that this Parliament also understands and legislates for mitigation of the risks of technology. I will touch on that, too.

Technology has the potential to revolutionise our public services, making them more efficient, accessible and responsive to the needs of every citizen. Automating routine tasks can free up staff time, so that staff can deal with more complex issues, and using digital platforms can reduce the need for physical infrastructure, which lowers costs. Digital services can help us reach those in remote areas, and real-time data or open data initiatives help to make Government processes more transparent. There are many examples of local councils and public services already innovating and using technology to improve services. Online GP appointments and digital prescriptions, where appropriate, can free up GP time, as surgeries are under ever-growing pressure. The Secretary of State spoke movingly about his mother and the technology that she sadly did not have, but he is right to point out that technology is transforming our NHS day to day, and we must welcome that.

Going back to my heartland of teaching, online learning platforms have been used incredibly successfully in the education sector, particularly during the lockdowns, and we have learned much about what works, and what does not, when it comes to technology in the classroom. But when those delivering public services look at introducing innovations and new technologies, there are also significant barriers. Despite recent funding increases, council budgets are expected to be 18% lower in real terms in 2024-25 than in the early 2010s, with demand for acute services increasing post-pandemic.

Local services are too often struggling with tight ringfenced budgets, which prevent the strategic investment needed to upgrade outdated systems and implement digital technologies. How many people have spent their time in a queue, waiting to talk to the local council, and wondered why on earth we still have this old technology? Digital and technology skills are often also highlighted as a big concern for local authorities, who face a growing struggle to recruit and retain skilled technologists. Public services find it hard to compete with the salaries of the private sector, or to invest in training and development.

Artificial intelligence is by far and away the sexiest and one of the most significant and talked-about areas. That technology is developing rapidly, and we risk falling behind. If implemented properly, it can improve experiences for service users. Chatbots and virtual assistants can help with personalising services and addressing queries. Automated data analysis can evaluate larger quantities of data in a shorter timeframe, and where AI is used to support the creation of datasets, accurate patterns and trends in data can be identified. In my area of Oxfordshire, the county council is piloting the use of generative AI to support administrative tasks, and the scheme will look at whether AI can speed up routine processes in order to reduce costs. The previous Government’s announcement that £110 million of funding will be ringfenced for the deployment of AI across the public sector was a welcome development, and I would like to hear from the new Minister whether the Government plan to follow through on this scheme, which I think is well worth investing in.

But AI is not without its challenges. It reflects the values and biases of the humans who create it, causing campaigners to raise concerns. In August 2020, the Home Office agreed to stop using a computer algorithm to help sort visa applications after it was claimed that the algorithm contained entrenched racism and bias. It essentially created a three-tier system for immigration, with a speedy boarding lane for white people from the countries most favoured by the system.

Earlier this year, it emerged that the Department for Work and Pensions had stopped routinely suspending benefit claims flagged by its AI-powered fraud detector. Campaigners had long raised concerns that potential bias in the system could lead to unfair delays for legitimate claimants. The campaign group Big Brother Watch said:

“DWP’s overreliance on new technologies puts the rights of people who are often already disadvantaged, marginalised, and vulnerable, in the backseat.”

It is vital that the Government are open and transparent with the public about how and why AI and algorithmic models are being used, so I am pleased the Department recently said that the algorithmic transparency recording standard is now mandatory for all Departments, but I would argue that we need to go further.

The Liberal Democrats want to see a clear, workable and well-resourced, cross-sectoral regulatory framework that promotes innovation while creating certainty for AI users, developers and investors. My colleague Lord Clement-Jones tabled a private Member’s Bill, the Public Authority Algorithm Bill—the Liberal Democrats know how to party—in the other place during a previous Session. This important Bill would have regulated the use of automated decision making in the public sector by requiring a public authority to complete an algorithmic impact assessment where it uses an automated decision-making system. I urge Ministers to look at the Bill and to work with colleagues in both Houses to develop the right regulation. If they have not had a chance to speak to Lord Clement-Jones, a former Chair of the Lords Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence, I would encourage them to do so.

Technology offers so many opportunities, but we will lose public support if we do not get to grips with the risks. The Liberal Democrats want to embrace these opportunities for innovation and change, and we also want to protect citizens’ rights, their identities and their data. It is vital that we put the right infrastructure and safeguards in place to help our public services make the most of new opportunities while keeping our country safe.

I hope the Government are ready to think strategically and to invest for the long term by putting science and innovation at the heart of their plan for economic growth. If they do, the Liberal Democrats will support them and, where appropriate, they can expect us to challenge them too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Patricia Ferguson to make her maiden speech.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I thank you, your team and all parliamentary staff for your cheerfulness and support over the last few weeks? I promise that I will eventually stop asking how to get to places, but it might not be for a while yet.

I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). I listened carefully to her very interesting speech, from which I learned quite a lot. Then again, those who know me will know that giving my maiden speech in a technology debate is probably not the best idea there ever was.

As I rise to make my first contribution, I am acutely aware of the great honour afforded to me by the constituents of Glasgow West, who elected me to represent their interests in this place. I will never allow the allure of politics or the mystique of this place to obscure that bigger picture.

Although I am the first Member for the new constituency of Glasgow West, I am conscious, too, of the contributions made by my predecessors in Glasgow North West and Glasgow Anniesland who served our communities so well. Carol Monaghan, my immediate predecessor, championed the condition ME and worked to give the issue wider prominence, and John Robertson succeeded in amending the Welfare Reform Bill 2009 to ensure that people who are registered blind or partially sighted could claim the higher level of disability living allowance.

But perhaps my most illustrious predecessor is the late Donald Dewar, who served in this House for many years and was both a shadow Minister and a Cabinet Minister. Donald was my MP when I joined the Labour party and, over the years, he became a good friend. He was, of course, the father of Scottish devolution and Scotland’s first First Minister, which is really quite an accolade—it is also quite difficult to say, to be honest. He was also the man who persuaded this working-class woman, brought up in a room and kitchen in Maryhill and on the 21st floor of the Red Road flats, that she could, and indeed should, be Deputy Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament—an encouragement for which I will always be grateful.

My thanks must also go to another Scottish First Minister, Jack McConnell—Lord McConnell, as I suppose we must now call him, as he serves in the other place—who trusted me to be the Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business and, subsequently, Cabinet Secretary for Tourism, Culture and Sport. I loved both jobs and had the most amazing experiences, not least launching the National Theatre of Scotland and submitting Glasgow’s successful bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games.

The experience of working in that Cabinet helped me to understand the importance of working across Government and, in our case, working across parties, because we were in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, many of whom are still friends to this day. That was the important thing I learned, and I am delighted that this Labour Government understand that principle and are using the benefit of joined-up government to make progress.

It is also good to see this Government’s commitment to the open and transparent use of public money. For those who do not know, the Red Road flats were a large development of multi-storey flats in the north of Glasgow. At its peak, the estate housed more people than the town of St Andrews, but for many years it had no shops or facilities. When we build the houses that we so badly need across the country, I sincerely hope we will recognise that people need facilities as well as homes That is responsible planning and responsible use of public money, and I was delighted to hear the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that necessity in her statement earlier today.

I also want to talk a little about my constituency. I have listened to many maiden speeches in this Chamber and heard Members extol the virtues of their constituencies, so I now have a bucket list of places I want to visit. I have to say that my constituency is very beautiful, but that is not what intrigues me most about it and it is not the thing of which I am most proud.

I am most proud of the many wonderful organisations that support the people and communities in my area. The G15 project works so hard with young people in the Drumchapel area to host Drumchapel TV; many a “Newsnight” presenter could learn something from the station’s young interviewers. For years, Drumchapel food bank has supported some of the most vulnerable people in our community. Kingsway Community Connections supports a diverse range of people to achieve the best possible in their communities. And, of course, the Yoker resource centre, led by the indefatigable Sandy Busby, has supported the people of Yoker for decades.

Drumchapel may now be a working-class Glasgow overspill estate, but it still has traces of the Antonine wall, built to delineate the northernmost limits of the Roman empire. Scotstoun, another of our local communities, is home to the mighty Glasgow Warriors rugby team, who recently won the united rugby championships title, and Victoria Park, the site of a grove of fossilised trees that have stood in that spot for 330 million years.

One issue that has long concerned me is the disparity in life expectancy between people in parts of my constituency and their more affluent neighbours in other parts of Scotland. That difference can be anything up to 12 years. Perhaps even more stark is the fact that people in our most deprived areas have a healthy life expectancy gap of 23 years for men and 23.9 years for women. Many of the reasons are obvious: poor housing, low pay, lack of opportunity and poor living conditions—all reasons why I support the new deal for workers being spearheaded by the Deputy Prime Minister, and the pursuit of economic growth being pursued by our first female Chancellor of the Exchequer. That people should have comprehensive rights at work and the dignity that comes with it is vitally important.

Glasgow West is home to some notable companies employing large numbers of people, including Edrington, the makers of the Macallan, Highland Park and the Famous Grouse—other whiskies are available—and Mortons Rolls, who make the perfect accompaniment to the Lorne sausage, a delicacy that is a sad omission from Parliament’s restaurants.

It is appropriate in this debate to mention BAE Systems, one of the last Clyde shipbuilders, which recently invested some £14 million in a new training academy. I met some of its 140 new apprentices just a few weeks ago, and their enthusiasm was infectious. It was also great to see the way in which technology was being incorporated into their training. No longer was it necessary for young welders in training to be exposed to great heat and noxious gases. The young people were working on welding but doing it virtually. It was amazing to watch—so realistic and so clever. Indeed, some of the more experienced welders are using that technology to practise and rehearse how they approach the more difficult tasks that they will encounter. That virtual programme is very impressive. If the Minister or any of his team ever want to visit, they just need to tell me and we can make arrangements.

Another large employer is, of course, the NHS. Glasgow West is home to Gartnavel hospital and to the Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, famed for its groundbreaking research and treatment since 1886. The Secretary of State referred to how much better diagnosis can be with the use of AI and other technologies. As a cancer survivor myself, I understand just how important the facility is to people across the west of Scotland and beyond. I am also aware that early detection and treatment are vital, and that it is often within our most deprived communities that the take-up of screening is at its lowest—that situation has to change. I very much hope the current Scottish Government are sincere in wishing to work with the UK Government to ensure that that problem, and others that beset our NHS, can be eradicated on both sides of the border.

Up until today, when I submitted my resignation, I was also a councillor in my constituency. I thank all the community groups and organisations that do such great work in ward 14. Glasgow West is well served by its councillors, but I have to single out my ward colleague, Councillor Paul Carey BEM, who has represented the Drumchapel/Anniesland ward for more than 20 years with tenacity and dedication.

Donald Dewar often spoke about the imbalance in the social arithmetic, and the need to rebalance the equation by reducing poverty and by giving all our children the best possible start in life and the opportunity to fulfil their potential. That will only be achieved by working across Government, which is why I welcome the establishment of the poverty taskforce and why its mission is so important to all our constituents and to the work of this Government. People across this country have put their belief and trust in us. It is up to us now to make sure we deliver for them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Alex Brewer to make her maiden speech.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson). I congratulate her on a moving maiden speech, and I hope to add another place on her bucket list.

I am honoured to have been elected as the first Liberal Democrat MP for North East Hampshire, a constituency that has had only two previous MPs: James Arbuthnot—now Lord Arbuthnot in the other place—who is known for his important role in supporting Jo Hamilton and other sub-postmasters and postmistresses; and Ranil Jayawardena, who likewise wanted the best for our communities and campaigned for better infrastructure locally, alongside carrying out his ministerial roles.

Boundary changes mean that those in Lychpit and Old Basing, who are warmly welcomed into North East Hampshire, were previously represented by Dame Maria Miller in the Basingstoke constituency. She was a strong advocate for women in Parliament and encouraged those of all parties.

I am only the second woman to stand for Parliament in North East Hampshire, and only about 15 have stood before me in any of the constituencies now covered by the current boundaries, so it gives me great pride to be in the Parliament with the highest number of women ever. That achievement would not have been possible without the support of my dad, my late mum, and my husband and children.

North East Hampshire is a place that people often travel through: by train between London and the west country, or by road on the A30 or the M3, stopping perhaps at Fleet services. Those who live there, however, enjoy good schools, good transport links, low crime and plenty of countryside—all the reasons, in fact, why the place often tops the list of the best places to live in the UK, and why my family and I chose to move there 10 years ago. I encourage Members, the next time a journey takes them that way, to stop and visit. If they wish to indulge their interest in political history, they could choose to stay at the Four Seasons. The hotel is situated in the former home of Sir Henry St John-Mildmay, the fifth Baronet of the Dogmersfield estate, who was also, coincidentally, a Liberal political candidate in 1865. Or they might choose Highfield Park, where Neville Chamberlain spent his final months.

Once a visitor has arrived, there is plenty to experience. History enthusiasts should visit Odiham castle, Basing House and the Roman city walls at Silchester. Those with a military interest will not be disappointed with a constituency that boasts RAF Odiham; Stratfield Saye House, the home of the Dukes of Wellington; and Blackbushe airport, created as an airfield during the second world war.

For nature lovers, there is so much to choose from: the Hazeley Heath nature reserve, or a sturdy walk up Beacon hill to look out over Caesar’s camp. If they like their nature by the water, there is Fleet pond, the Basingstoke canal and our two chalk streams, the Loddon and the Whitewater.

After all that, perhaps they might be in need of refreshment. North East Hampshire is home to dozens of village pubs, cafés and bakeries. From the award-winning Street Bakery in Old Basing to the Heron on the Lake at Fleet Pond, looking out over the water, there is something for everyone. We even have a local gin distilled at Upton Grey.

One of the joys of the area is that each town and village has its own personality, with a high number of independent businesses that makes each one unique. A walk through Bramley is entirely different from a stroll along Hartley Wintney High Street or a meander through Yately.

What unites all of these places is the people. Each unique town or village has a strong sense of community, and the people of North East Hampshire are unfailingly generous with their time and energy in pursuit of this goal. This community spirit was seen most recently when Hook infant school and local homes and businesses were victim to a summer flash flood. People rallied around, helped clean up, raised funds, donated items, hosted friends whose homes were damaged and offered sympathy. It is in this way that all the communities within North East Hampshire are connected.

But this place that I love to call home is not without its challenges too. Connecting our towns and villages takes more than good will. Our roads, particularly our smaller roads, are in a terrible state, public transport leaves a lot to be desired, and bus routes are sparse at best. It is also surprising that North East Hampshire is behind the national average in the adoption of 5G mobile services, especially when we consider the above-average employment in the technology sector—one that will be vital for the modernisation of both Government and our public services. The investment that is needed to ensure joined-up and efficient public service processes is as vital as the investment needed in North East Hampshire’s transport.

The UK has a proud history of research and innovation, but when nurses are still taking patient notes with pen and paper, it is clear that action is needed. Indeed, the National Audit Office’s report only last year stated that

“outdated IT systems…are a key source of inefficiency”

in Government. We cannot be a country needing to catch up, and I hope that the Government will draw on the expertise of those in the technology sector to quickly implement the best possible solutions, while ensuring that individuals’ personal information is held with the highest possible security.

I also encourage the Government, in their review of technology in public services, to consider the role that charities play in supporting the sector. The tireless work of organisations such as Citizens Advice and the Trussell Trust, as well as countless local and regional charities, is the bedrock of our communities. Such organisations support the public sector to deliver many vital services across health, education, housing, criminal justice and more. In my view, it is essential that those organisations are also invested in, and integrated into, the new systems that will be created. I look forward to working with those local organisations, those businesses and the people in North East Hampshire, and I thank them for putting their trust in me.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Dr Allison Gardner to make her maiden speech.

Oral Answers to Questions

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That is disappointing to see. I think it has been just under a year that the now Labour-run Westminster Council has put its own councillors’ pay ahead of everything else. I cannot quite believe the figures we heard from my hon. Friend—a staggering, eye-watering 45% pay increase when people across our country and abroad are suffering cost of living pressures. It is clear that it is only Conservative-run councils that deliver for their residents.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Q4. Every child in the UK is entitled to free NHS dental treatment, but with 80% of practices not accepting children as new patients, is the Prime Minister proud of his record on our children’s dental health?

[The Prime Minister]

We are investing £3 billion in NHS dentistry. Because of the reforms to the contract, there will be about 10% more activity this year above contracted levels. There are 500 more dentists in the NHS today and, I think, almost a 45% increase in the amount of dental care being provided to children.