Secondary Ticketing Market
Luke Evans Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody), and I hope she enjoys her nostalgic tour through all the concerts she plans to go to. For what it is worth, as we are sharing, one of my first gigs was Faithless, which I am quite proud of, although it does not quite stack up when I say that my second one was Tom Jones. Still, I enjoyed both hugely.
I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) talk about her parents becoming victims. There is some joke about Sting and getting the Police involved, but I will leave that for the moment.
I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her dedication and her expertise on this issue. We all know, as I have learned in the last five years, that we have to plod and plod in this place to keep getting heard. The fact that we are having another debate and that there will be a consultation is all credit to her.
Like the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), I too have seen three of S Club 7. My sighting was at a stag do with my brother in Newport. I hope that the hon. Member was not there—if he was, I hope he does not share the pictures.
As the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) noted, grassroots venues are so important. The UK is a centre for the creative industries, and that is the testbed; that is why we have world-class talent coming out, and we certainly do not want to lose that.
The hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) brings a huge amount of expertise. I think she said she was a DJ, so I am looking forward to her doing the cross-party celebration of “Mistletoe and Wine”—there is a good Cliff Richard reference.
The issue of secondary ticketing and dynamic ticket pricing has affected many of our constituents, as we have heard today. It certainly seems that when Oasis came up with their masterplan to reform, the ticket promoters did not foresee the issue of dynamic pricing causing so many headlines and unfortunately detracting from the exciting news of Oasis reforming.
It is important to separate the secondary ticket market from the specific issue of dynamic ticket pricing. Unlike the primary market, in which tickets are sold at their original face value and the price is set by the artists, event organisers or box office, the secondary ticket market relates to tickets resold after their original sale. Prices for these tickets are often inflated and sometimes go for at least double the face value. We have heard the term price gouging, which particularly applies here.
Dynamic ticket pricing is, as the Minister will be aware, a pricing strategy used by a lot of sectors, including hotels, taxis and airlines, to name but a few. Dynamic ticket pricing can bring significant benefits for consumers when prices are lowered—for example, early bird tickets or late tickets, as we heard from the hon. Member for Chelmsford.
I appreciate that the Competition and Markets Authority has published a call for evidence on the use of dynamic ticket pricing for Oasis. I hope the Minister will agree that in the case of Oasis ticket sales the issue seems to be that fans may not have been provided with the necessary information up front and had not been given any clear information about what was going on. Above all, transparency is really important.
I hope the Minister will touch on how drip-pricing is slightly different and how that affects the live events sector. As we have heard, that relates to hidden costs. A customer should be able to see the full price they are paying up front and not have hidden unnecessary costs.
Mrs Hodgson
The shadow Minister—sorry. He pointed out that with dynamic pricing the price can go up but also come down. That might happen when it is Uber, airline prices or hotel rooms, but at yesterday’s meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse we heard from experts in the room, FanFair Alliance and Reg Walker, that that never happens with regard to ticketing. They never come down. The only way is up.
Dr Evans
I bow to the hon. Lady’s expertise. I hope that will be teased out when we know the terms of reference for the consultation. These are exactly the problems that we need to look at. We can all see that there can be a benefit for the market if dynamic pricing is used for cheaper theatre tickets, but if it is not used in the correct way, how do we enforce that? “How” is the hardest part. We have heard a lot about the problem, but how we solve it, with advancing technology, is what is really going to make the difference.
That takes me back to the point about the need to have information up front, so that people are not misled in the sales process. Clarity is key. I know the Minister is keen to quote the example of Dua Lipa, but I did my own research on ticket face value. My team and I came across a ticket on Viagogo that was priced at £250 but marked up to £5,167.
We can clearly see that that profit is not going where it should, which is upsetting for fans and frustrating for venues and, perhaps most importantly, angers the artists. Through no fault of their own, they are then labelled as a problem because they are pulled into the secondary market. As many hon. Members will know, and as we have heard, there was particular frustration about the use of computer-powered software. As we heard from the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth, we all welcomed the last Government taking action to strengthen the law on ticket information requirements and introducing a criminal offence for the use of automated software to buy more tickets online.
I often think that it is wise to learn from other hon. Members in this place. With that in mind, I looked to see what the Minister had previously said on the topic, given his long-standing interest. I noticed that in April, when the then Government announced a review into the market, he castigated them and said:
“The idea of a review at the dog end of a Parliament and at the end of the regime is absolutely pathetic”.—[Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 187.]
He continued by saying that Labour
“will bring these measures in and go further”. —[Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 187.]
So I have to admit that it is a surprise to see that the new Government’s plan, which they thought about for 14 years, is to introduce a consultation. In our exchange in the Chamber last week, the Minister quoted Bucks Fizz. He said,
“the previous Government had embraced Bucks Fizz…
‘Don’t let your indecision take you from behind.’”—[Official Report, 17 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 966.]
I am pleased to see him being decisive by choosing to do exactly what the last Government did. He is so decisive, in fact, that when he was asked this week, he said:
“That is why we will be launching a consultation on the secondary ticket market soon—the piece of paper in front of me actually says ‘in the autumn’, but I am never quite sure when that is, so I am going with ‘soon’.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 969.]
I ask the Minister not to look back in anger at the last Government—after all, the Conservatives were caught beneath a landslide by a Labour champagne supernova. He is in the Government, and it is the Government’s job to get this right.
I have several questions for the Minister. When will the Government launch their consultation, not the one by the CMA? What is the scope of the consultation and what are its terms of reference—for example, will it include the role of search engines that signpost customers to touts, which is a real problem? When does it aim to conclude? Wider still, how does the private Member’s Bill presented by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) fit into this? Is it a Government handout Bill and does it have Government support?
Finally, no one in the House wants to see the public or the artist ripped off, as the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) pointed out, so can the Minister clarify how the following fits into Labour’s vision for tackling the secondary market? The Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, stated that
“a Labour government will cap resale prices so fans can see the acts that they love at a fair price.”
Is that Labour policy? What is a “fair price” and for whom, and how does that translate into artists being paid for their talents? Furthermore, I hope that the Minister will forensically analyse the successes and weaknesses of the legislation that has been implemented in Ireland and is coming forward in Australia, with no fear or favour, to ensure that we get a fit with whatever is brought forward.
In closing, live events make a significant contribution to the UK economy, as many Ministers will know from their summers of concerts and sporting events. Indeed, it is tempting to mention the Prime Minister’s favourite country pop singer and her recent Eras tour, which provided an economic boost to this country of almost £1 billion. The Conservatives want the live events sector to continue to thrive, and to ensure that the ticket market is fair for consumers and well-priced. As the Opposition are looking forward to seeing the consultation, one could say that we are ready for it. I hope the Minister will announce further details not only “soon” but imminently.
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
It is a great delight to see you in your seat, Mr Rosindell, not least because we have been knocking around these parts as MPs for about the same time. It pays to hang on in there, doesn’t it? It is a great delight to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) on securing this debate. This is an innovation that I have started in the last few debates that we have had here: I am going to try to answer the questions that hon. Members have put to the Minister as much as I possibly can.
Chris Bryant
Hang on. In the words of Shania Twain, “That don’t impress me much”.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth asked what we can do under the current legislation. It is a frustration, certainly for this Minister—I am not sure that previous Ministers felt it—that although several different bodies could bring forward prosecutions, the number of prosecutions has been so few. I fully understand why trading standards has struggled, because for the last 14 years, local authorities have had difficult budgets and sometimes it has not had the resources that it needs to take forward these issues.
It is not for me to directly tell trading standards or the CMA when to take action— we believe in the separation of powers, so that would be completely inappropriate —but the more that the prosecuting authorities feel able to act in this sphere, the better. If they want to come to me and say that they do not have the powers or the resources that they need, I am happy to hear that and we can act on that basis, but it is frustrating that I cannot tell them to act in individual cases.
Chris Bryant
I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I will try to answer all the questions. I will come on to his questions later.
One key matter that we will have to get right—if and when we bring forward legislation in this field—is enforcement, because there is no point bringing forward new lews if we cannot enforce them. We made manifesto commitments during the general election that we are absolutely determined to implement. As for when they will be implemented in legislation, we have had one King’s Speech; there will be another one coming along. I do not want to tell the Leader of the House precisely who will have what Bills at what time, because I might not stay in my post if I keep doing that, but if there is a Bill at some point, we will have to ensure that we sort out the enforcement issue. That is one element on which we will be consulting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth said that this issue is not at the top of the list of Government priorities. Whenever I post about it on X, people say, “Bryant, get on with doing the things that really matter to your constituents.” Well, this is one of those issues. The Government can do more than one thing at the same time. This is part of a panoply of measures that we need to implement to ensure that we put fans back at the heart of music, live events and sport. It is part of a wider Government strategy to rejig the economy so that it works for all of us. As my hon. Friend quoted:
“What is a club in any case?...It’s the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging”.
It is fundamentally about the fans. They are the people who have created the value, and it is despicable that they are not able to benefit from it.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) made the point that things have got worse since 2012. I think she is right, which is why it was a bit cheeky of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), to pretend that they had not been in government for 14 years, and to actually praise the previous Government for taking no action in this area. We are determined to take the necessary action, and I hope that the hon. Member for Chelmsford and her party will support those measures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) used the word “parasite” at one point. On the “Today” programme, someone was saying that leeches have had great difficulty reproducing of late, but that they have discovered a new way. I do not want to overstate this metaphor, but we could argue that what we see in the secondary market is a form of leeching off the creative endeavours and the fan-led passion of so many others.
I will give some more examples. “Vampire” is my favourite of Olivia Rodrigo’s songs. We can get tickets for her concert in Manchester on 1 July next year on StubHub for £1,506, with a face value of £200. If we go to Viagogo, the price is £2,573 for exactly the same event—almost identical tickets, just a few rows in. That ticket’s face value, which we find only once we have gone two thirds of the way through the process with Viagogo, is £50. That is a shocking 5,146% increase. We can buy tickets for James Blunt—everybody knows I am not a great fan of his and he is no great fan of mine—that have a face value of £105 for £327 on StubHub.
It is not just about music: the England versus South Africa autumn international rugby tickets for 16 November, with a face value of £145, cost £889 on Viagogo. We should tell the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who I think is the world’s greatest Bruce Springsteen fan, that tickets with a face value of £150 are selling on Gigsberg for £1,044.08. Tickets for the world darts championship being held at Alexandra Palace on 30 December this year, with a face value of £55, are £248 on Gigsberg. I could go on, because this is an endless daily source of—frankly—racketeering based on a fundamental unfairness, and that is what we want to put right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) and I have talked about several issues in relation to the creative industries in his constituency. He made the point about Ed Sheeran, whom I think has made Framlingham castle more famous for him than for Queen Mary, which is quite an accomplishment after so many hundreds of years. That is also part of our tourism industry, as people want to go to Framlingham castle to see the place that “Castle on the Hill” was written about, so we need to capitalise on that. But we cannot if none of the money ends up going back into the creative industries or even into the local economy, and simply goes off into a black hole.
Chris Bryant
And yet so far. Change is coming. I say to all the people I have referred to—Gigsberg, Viagogo, StubHub, Ticketmaster and all the rest—that change is coming, so they should start getting ready for it, because that is what we are determined to deliver.
Edinburgh Festivals: Cultural and Economic Contribution
Luke Evans Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Efford. I hope you do not mind that I have taken off my collar to allow a bit of movement. If my head starts to wobble, please do intervene. Congratulations to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) on securing this debate. It is fantastic to have a discussion on this. Looking through Hansard, I note there has not been a debate on this topic since 1992. He brings a wealth of knowledge and passion that clearly came through, as it did in speeches by a variety of MPs whom I do not have time to thank. That was our own MP fringe event happening right here.
I admit I have never been to the fringe festival, although strangely I, too, have been to a stag do in Edinburgh. I always like to look what the best joke was each year. This year’s was from Mark Simmons:
“I was going to sail around the globe in the world’s smallest ship but I bottled it.”
I first saw him on TikTok, which shows the power of how these artists can spread. Have I stolen the Minister’s line?
Dr Evans
I was also interested to hear that another major Scottish city—Glasgow—has been successful in getting the Commonwealth games. I believe the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh moved to Edinburgh from his home town of Glasgow. It is great to see that success in both those cities is supporting the UK as a cultural destination. I wish the city of Edinburgh well as it prepares for its international storytelling festival, with Hogmanay on the horizon.
The previous Government provided significant support to the sector, including the then Chancellor’s spring Budget, in which he announced £8.6 million of support to festivals, to help boost Scotland’s status as a destination for creative industries, as we have heard. I also understand that the Edinburgh and South East Scotland city regional deal, agreed under the previous Government, is giving the city the chance to unlock opportunities for economic and cultural growth.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh is well aware of the successes of the festivals. I thought I would add a couple more bits of data: more than 2.6 million tickets issued, more than 3,746 shows registered, and more than 60 different countries represented on stage. That shows the appeal, not only locally but internationally. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) said, the R&D incubator for the creative industries is something we must cherish.
I noted that the Edinburgh fringe app was downloaded 124,000 times, which shows that a traditional festival can move with the times, and work with others to be creative and engage more people. The extent of the data on the impact of this year’s festival has not been fully quantified or produced yet. In 2022, the Edinburgh fringe festival was on a par with the FIFA World cup. In 2022, BOP Consulting was commissioned by the Edinburgh festival to undertake an economic impact of the previous 11 Edinburgh festivals. The festival in 2022 generated an economic impact of £407 million—a significant increase from £280 million in 2015—not to mention the 7,000 direct jobs and 8,500 jobs across Scotland.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said in his maiden speech just a couple of months ago,
“culture, hospitality and tourism form the economic backbone of my constituency, not least in August, when it plays host to the Edinburgh international festival and fringe.” —[Official Report, 25 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 883.]
With that, and turning to the Minister, I am interested in understanding whether he believes the visitor levy being proposed in Scotland will benefit the Edinburgh festivals. Will it benefit the city of Edinburgh and Scottish tourism as a whole? I understand that Edinburgh City Council, as well as Glasgow and Aberdeen, are looking at using the legislation. Does the Minister feel that Scotland has got this right and is he considering that across his Department in Westminster?
The Minister has a jam-packed portfolio, and I would hate tourism and the creative industries to become a fringe, as they are too valuable for that. Will he ensure that the creative industry budget is maintained in the upcoming Budget? Has he spoken directly to the Chancellor about tourism and creative industries? What assurances has he received that the creative industries will be protected, with tax reliefs maintained?
That being said, we are all here to celebrate a fantastic event. I again put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh for bringing this forward, from 1992 all the way to 2024.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Minister, I wish to call the mover of the debate at 5.45 pm, so I ask that you give him a minute at the end of your speech.
Chris Bryant
There we are—I have been corrected. The most important point my hon. Friend made was about creative education. We need to make sure that every single child in this country gets a proper creative education. It is a force multiplier for other forms of education and means that children will prosper better in the work market. We are determined to transform that.
My hon. Friend—sorry, the hon. Member—for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine)—she is a friend as well; she is a very friendly person—is from my mother’s part of the world: Glasgow. She made a very important point about the world’s window on us. That element of soft power, which several Members have referred to, is important. The Edinburgh festivals as a whole are an important part of that. For instance, the film festival and the television festival are world-renowned moments when people look to the UK. She talked about the cost of accommodation in Edinburgh, which goes back to some of our discussions about short lets. It is a significant concern, and one of the things that we want to learn lessons from.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) also referred to accommodation costs. I am conscious that some people think we are going to be looking at dynamic pricing in relation to those costs: we are not; we are looking at dynamic pricing in relation to tickets. It is very interesting that the Edinburgh festivals do not use dynamic pricing. That is a really important part of making the whole package affordable and more accessible to more people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) referred to the book festival—it is not just because Walter Scott gets a great big statue; so many literary figures have come from Edinburgh. She also referred to the importance of Edinburgh being a UNESCO city of literature.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) talked about the Cheltenham festival. I welcome him to his place and look forward to working with him. I am going to answer the questions from the shadow Minister, who I think sings in a barbershop quartet or chorus—
Chris Bryant
Not yet—all right. He asked about the levy in Scotland, which is of interest to lots of people. Lots of other countries do it; it is not something that we are pursuing at the moment. He asked about the creative industries in the Budget—well, he will have to wait for the Budget, won’t he? He asked about tax reliefs—he can wait until tomorrow morning.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the cultural and economic contribution of the Edinburgh festivals.
Technology in Public Services
Luke Evans Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered technology in public services.
It is the first time I have had the privilege of speaking under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for it. May I start by welcoming the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) to his place? I had his job, and I realise just what a privilege it is. Today, I think we have nine Members seeking to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make their maiden speech. In advance, I offer them my very best wishes in this nervous moment. I look forward to hearing them. I am about to perform my maiden speech as a Secretary of State, so we are all in it together.
My mum was scanned three times in 18 months because of chest pain, and each time the scan came back clear. Not one of the scans detected the disease—lung cancer—that without warning would take her away from her family. Today, it takes an artificial-intelligence-powered scanner in Huddersfield hospital just seven seconds to detect the earliest signs of lung cancer. Seven seconds is all it takes to give somebody back decades with the people they love. I firmly believe that had my mother received that kind of care, she would still be alive today. I would have celebrated her 80th birthday just this weekend gone. It is that belief in the power of technology to change our lives for the better that will guide this Government’s approach.
It is all too easy to think of technology such as AI as being impersonal, alienating or distant, but the first thing I think about is people—the teachers in our schools who will deliver a personalised lesson to every pupil and help them fulfil their potential, and the patients in our hospitals who can access lifesaving drugs for diseases that until recently were untreatable. Technologies can change our everyday lives in ways that are both ordinary and extraordinary.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State is making a fine maiden speech in his start at the Dispatch Box. As a previously practising doctor, I know that one thing that could really help is using some of the AI we see coming forward in the back office. The previous Government committed to a £3.4 billion NHS productivity plan. Are the Government still committed to taking that forward, because that investment would have significant benefits for staff and patients?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for that intervention and welcome the hon. Member to his place, too. The Government take extremely seriously the role that AI and digital technologies have in productivity in all public services and, as my speech unfolds, I hope that he will hear more detail about the scale of our ambition. To take just one of the schemes that we will be unfolding, the fit for the future programme—a £480 million commitment in our manifesto—will be responsible for driving innovation through the NHS, with adoption of the very latest scanning equipment as well as other equipment right across the NHS in England. Those are just some of the things that we are committed to, and I assure him that the Government are wholly committed to this agenda.
Nothing about change is inevitable. The future of technology is ours to shape, and the opportunities it offers are ours to seize. My ministerial team and I want to see a future where technology enriches the life of every single citizen and a future with safety at its foundation, because only when people are safe and feel safe can they embrace technology and the possibilities that it presents.
Today, Britain’s tech sector is showing us what that future might look like, but far too often our public services are simply stuck in the past. The contrast could not be clearer. Much of the century so far has been defined by the sheer speed of technological advancement. The digital revolution has transformed our lives in ways that would have been unimaginable just a couple of decades ago. Most of us can access our bank accounts anywhere, at any time, and transferring money takes just seconds. Social media and video calls have given grandparents back precious time with their grandchildren, no matter how far away they may live. Young people live in a world where they can find thousands of jobs at the click of a mouse and work for a global brand without having to leave the community they love living in. Yet, as innovation has accelerated, the state has fallen further behind. Our citizens still need to contend with up to 190 different accounts, with 44 different sign-in methods, to access Government services online. Each of them is easy to lose or forget.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that incredibly important point. I hope she will see that one of the themes of my speech is indeed tackling inequality and inequity, as well as outlining how I believe this is one of the progressive causes of our time. If we are not careful and do not shape this agenda in the right way, with progressive values and safety baked in from the start of everything we do, we will not have the trust of the public, and every citizen will not benefit as they should.
My hon. Friend references issues in the life sciences aspects of the agenda. The Health Secretary and I are joined at the hip on this; we co-developed the life sciences action plan, which we are jointly rolling out, he and I both chair some of the work relating to the life sciences action plan, and the two of us—working for a Government and a Prime Minister who care so much about tackling the inequities that currently exist in society—will ensure that these issues will be central to the agenda as it unfolds.
Every day, people in Britain are confronted with a glaring technology gap between the private sector and public services—a gap that has become impossible to ignore, between the personalised and paper-shuffling, the efficient and the inconvenient, the time-saving and the time-wasting. That gap is not just a policy problem to solve but one of the great progressive causes of our time.
The previous Government promised us a small state, but after 14 years all they did was give us a slow one. They gave us a state that takes away time from those with too few hours to give: parents on low income who are already missing out on time with their families because they are working overtime just to make ends meet; and the people at the margins of our digital world, or excluded from it all together. By closing the technology gap, we will restore every citizen’s belief that the state can work for them.
When the previous Government set up the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, they recognised the transformative power of technology. They were right to do so, but if we want to lay the foundations for a decade of national renewal, we must be much bolder. We need to rewire Whitehall, because technology is much more than just another sector to support or a strategic advantage to secure; it is the foundation for every one of our national missions.
From kickstarting economic growth and making Britain a clean energy superpower, to breaking down barriers to opportunity and building an NHS that is fit for the future, our task is fundamentally different and our approach must be, too. That is why we have made DSIT the digital centre for Government. By bringing together digital, data and technology experts from across Government under one roof, my Department will drive forward the transformation of the state. That transformation will not just save people time; it will save taxpayers money, too. This Government are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge that we face.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the question. The delivery functions of digital transformation have moved from the Cabinet Office and other Departments into DSIT. Governance of such services remains shared between us, including a powerful role for Treasury oversight. We want to harness the best of Government, and we must do so by working collaboratively. That is the missions-led approach that the Prime Minister has championed, and it is a belief that I have baked into DSIT and the way that we work. I recognise that the challenges that we are seeking to solve with a powerful digital centre of Government can work only if we provide a resource that other Governments aspire to draw down on and work collaboratively on. That is the target that we have set ourselves and that we are setting about trying to achieve.
As I said, the Government are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge that we face. We promised to mend Britain’s broken public services. Now, we must do so with the worst set of economic circumstances since the second world war. With taxes at a 70-year high and a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, we cannot afford to duck the difficult decisions. The solution is not unchecked spending. It is long-term, sustainable economic growth, delivered in strategic partnership with business.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful. The interventions are building up, but I think I can answer both together to satisfy both Members. Yes, safety has to be built in at the outset and the public need to see that. We have inherited a problem with safety in our country. Women and girls do not feel safe outside after dark. Parents do not think their children are safe online. We have an issue with safety that we need to get a grip of. I feel incredibly strongly, as do Ministers and the Department, that we need to reassure people that as we embrace the technological advances that sit before us, we do so in a way that has safety built in from the outset. That is something we will do, and we have high expectations that others will do so too. As I will mention in a moment, we are setting statutory obligations on people at the pioneering side of AI.
Peter Kyle
I am afraid that I will not give way a third time, because others have to get in, and otherwise you will give me a glare, Madam Deputy Speaker—if the hon. Gentleman has not yet had one of those, when he does he will understand why I am moving forward at pace.
To build a smarter state, we need to build a state with digital infrastructure that is faster than ever, from the data centres powering cutting-edge AI to the broadband connections creating opportunities for all our communities. We must also manage public sector data as a national strategic resource. For far too long, public sector data has been undervalued and underused. We must replace chaos with co-ordination, and confusion with coherence. That is what the national data library will do. With a coherent data access policy and a library and exchange service, it will transform the way we manage our public sector data. It will have a relentless focus on maximising the value of that data for public good, on growing the economy and creating new jobs, and on delivering the data-driven AI-powered public services that they deserve.
The digital revolution promises to overhaul the way citizens engage with the state, but as with every technological revolution before it, we know that it brings risks. With those risks come uncertainty, instability and, for some, fear. We do not believe that people should have to choose between those two competing visions of our future: between safety and prosperity, and between security and opportunity. By shaping technology in the service of people, we will grow the economy, create jobs and lay the foundations for an inclusive society in which every citizen can see a place for themselves.
Artificial Intelligence Safety Summit
Luke Evans Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michelle Donelan
I am more than happy to talk to anybody from around the House, and to convene a meeting with colleagues of all colours to discuss this important area and what the future may hold in terms of responses and action.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
It was in 1993 that the world wide web first became accessible to the public, and 30 years on, the world is still grappling with how to regulate and legislate for this industry. I am pleased that we heard from the summit that we are going to have proactive model checking, but I agree with the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), that much of this AI technology is already out there—that is the problem. How quickly will the safety institute be set up, and most importantly, how quickly will we see tangible results? Can we learn lessons from the vaccine, and from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency on how legislation and regulation can run alongside innovation in this sector?
Michelle Donelan
In fact, we are learning some of those lessons, because the taskforce itself was modelled on our world-leading vaccine taskforce. As to when the institute will be set up, to all intents and purposes it has already been set up, because it is the next chapter—the evolution—of the existing taskforce. That taskforce has already done research on safety, and has demonstrated to delegates at the summit the full potential of the risks that could be apparent. It has already begun testing those models, and I can assure this House that there will be pre-deployment testing of the models that are going to come out within the next six months.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Luke Evans Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michelle Donelan
We are talking today about investing in the technologies that can progress our healthcare system and about our use of green technology so we can get to work in a cleaner, greener way. Our technologies can progress our society in so many different ways. I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss that in detail, but it might be more of a question for the Department of Health and Social Care.
That is why the Government’s commitment to AI goes much further than just warm words. Over five years ago, we identified AI as one of the four grand challenges in the industrial strategy, investing £1 billion in the AI sector deal in 2019. In 2021, we set out our ambitions in the national AI strategy—ambitions which the AI action plan shows we are determined to deliver. In the last decade, we have also invested over £2.5 billion in AI.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
On the Secretary of State’s new role in the new Department, one key thing we need to look at is keeping regulation updated with advancements. Already, things such as ChatGPT mean that people can get their homework done, generate images and make apps using a computer. Can we take the example of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, which learnt, through the vaccine, to do the research and put the regulation in place, so we do not find ourselves, with the Online Harms Bill, where we found 10 years ago when the internet was brought through? Is there an opportunity for her to put regulation in place to ensure we move it along as the technology develops?
Michelle Donelan
I absolutely agree. That is exactly why the Prime Minister announced, just days ago, the establishment of a large language model taskforce to look at that and to ensure we can gain sovereignty in this particular area. Over the coming weeks, we will also publish the AI White Paper.
Earlier this month, I announced £110 million for AI technology missions. That funding, which we anticipate will be matched by equal private investment, will support the science behind some of the most important AI technologies of the future. We will also realise some of AI’s transformative applications, from reducing greenhouse gas emissions to increasing productivity in sectors such as agriculture, construction and transport.
Success in AI requires the UK to be a hub of the best and brightest AI minds in the world. We have already backed AI with £8 million to bring top talent into the UK. That is coming on top of £117 million in existing funding to create hundreds of new PhDs in AI research. In the Budget, the Chancellor took a further step forward with the announcement of the Manchester prize, which will back those harnessing the immense power of AI to break new ground.
The Chancellor also announced a staggering £900 million in funding for an exascale super-computer and a dedicated AI research resource, making the UK one of only a handful of countries in the world to have such a powerful computing facility. We are creating thousands of high-quality jobs and ensuring that the UK is going to be the home of the Al technologies that will directly help to address the priorities of the British public. These are not just jobs that will power our future; every single job will create these exciting fields—opportunities that will release the potential of thousands of talented people up and down the country.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to open the debate on science and technology, as one of the few Members in this place probably with a science degree. You might be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I studied chemistry at Somerville, like another well-known female politician very popular on the Government Benches. I hope that is where the similarities end, although we both have a reputation for, how shall I put it, getting our own way.
Science, technology and innovation are close to my heart. I welcome the new focus—not before time—on these issues, which I will come to. Even with the new Department and a few mentions in the Budget, we are still miles behind where we need to be in exploiting the potential of the UK as a science and tech superpower.
First, let me address the Budget overall. Having had a few days to digest and analyse, the verdict on the Budget is in. It is not a
“sustainable plan for long-term economic expansion”.
Those are not my words but those of The Daily Telegraph. The Federation of Small Businesses was no more complimentary, saying that its members would feel “short-changed” by the “meagre” Budget. The Institute for Fiscal Studies labelled Britain a high-tax economy, with households feeling “continuing pain”.
The public view is that it is a Budget not for them, but for a tiny few—a growing theme after 13 years in office. No wonder most now trust Labour over the Conservatives when it comes to the economy. That is the verdict, because this is a Budget divorced from most people’s reality—or as we have just heard, from anybody’s reality. There was no mention in the Chancellor’s speech that this Parliament is set to see the biggest fall in living standards ever recorded—the biggest fall by a country mile, according to the Resolution Foundation. That means families worse off and prices going through the roof, as wages fall through the floor.
New research for the BBC, out today, shows that the average British worker is now £11,000 a year worse off than they should be, after 13 years of a Conservative Government. That is the reality for most people. The reason for that cannot be passed off as global forces, as it is relative too—middle-income Britons are now 10% worse off than the French and 20% worse off than their German equivalents. When holidaying Brits return to the continent in force this summer, they will feel like the poor man of Europe once again. That is the record of this Government; no wonder they hardly mentioned it.
It was a Budget divorced from the realities of most businesses, too. Nothing for them on their unaffordable, rising costs; nothing on business rate reform; and very little to boost their immediate workforce challenges either. Small businesses were offered thin gruel. Perhaps that was what the former Prime Minister meant when he said something quite unparliamentary about business.
It was a Budget utterly divorced from the realities facing our public services too, with hardly even a mention of the NHS or care. Yet we have 7 million patients stuck on waiting lists, A&E waiting times at an all-time high, social care in crisis, putting extra pressure our hospitals, and a chronic workforce emergency.
Dr Luke Evans
Does the hon. Lady welcome the statement by the British Medical Association about the changes to pensions, which will get senior doctors back to work? The chair of the BMA pensions committee said in the media that the changes had the immediate effect of getting people back to work, which means the NHS workforce will be strengthened.
Lucy Powell
I will come on to say something about that, but as my husband is an A&E consultant I am all too familiar with these issues. As the IFS said, it was a golden
“sledgehammer to crack a very small nut”.
The realities facing our public services are not addressed in this Budget.
It is another Tory Budget so divorced from reality that it exposes, once again, who the party in government is really for—tax cuts for the wealthiest, tax hikes for the rest. The last Tory Budget had a cut to the 45p top rate of tax; this Budget has a pension tax cut for the top 1%. Government Members might groan and wail, but that is the reality.
Wealth managers already see the Budget as a bonanza, and not only a huge tax break for the super-wealthy but an inheritance tax wheeze for the super-rich too, with one wealth adviser describing it as
“a great opportunity for tax-free growth.”
Lucy Powell
I will not apologise for those figures, and in the next part of my speech I will explain that the figures are perhaps worse than previously thought. There are issues for doctors, but only 16% of those who will benefit from this massive boon are doctors, and that is before all the speculators dive into this new wheeze. That is the political choice that this Chancellor and this Government have made—trickle-down economics, and tax perks for the tiny few. That is the record that they just will not be able to dodge.
Lucy Powell
I will not give way again. Government Members have plenty of time to give speeches.
It is a Budget divorced from the reality of who caused this economic crisis. It was the Conservative party that crashed the economy, sending markets into freefall and interest rates sky high, resulting in a Tory mortgage penalty for millions of homeowners. The Government want to blame others, but their record is falling living standards, a stagnant economy, falling house prices and the worst growth forecast in the G7—all stats the Chancellor failed to mention.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I cannot remember ever speaking in a Budget debate dedicated entirely to science, so it is a real pleasure. Like the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), I have a science degree, although mine is of a different flavour, being in physics. It is nice to speak in this debate as the SNP spokesperson.
A flourishing research and development landscape will produce major economic benefits, so the focus on science should be a positive. The problem is that this Government are not creating an environment conducive to flourishing research and development. First and foremost, they have to convince those working in the sector that they are valued. They have to consider the push and pull factors for a career in science. The Secretary of State talked about financially stable families, but she has to recognise that the wages and job insecurity mean that many cannot afford to stay in the sector, so they leave for other occupations.
I will now digress a little. A number of years ago, I visited a hydroelectric museum in the Alps. It is more than 150 years since we started developing hydroelectric as a means of generating electricity. The museum had an interesting display that said hydroelectric power would have been developed to a far greater extent if not for the discovery of oil. We saw oil stifling innovation, particularly in renewable sources, 150 years ago, and now we have the nuclear revival.
Rather than investing properly in renewable technologies, this Government are happy to throw billions at what they consider to be an easy source of energy. Proper action on decarbonisation would mean revising grid connection charges that see Scottish renewable producers paying, on average, £7.36 per megawatt-hour to access the grid, whereas producers in England pay, on average, 49p per megawatt-hour. Worse still, producers in Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg pay absolutely nothing. The Budget was an opportunity to address this inequality, to encourage greater energy innovation and, ultimately, to lower energy bills for my constituents and for constituents across the UK. Instead, we are repeating the mistakes of the past by taking the easy but expensive and environmentally unfriendly route.
Nuclear is environmentally unfriendly. The mining of uranium is a dirty process, as a lot of acid is used to extract it from rocks. There is then the storage of used fuel rods. For the Government to classify nuclear power as environmentally sustainable, with the same investment incentives as renewable energy, is a sinister attempt to pull the wool over the public’s eyes, and it shows a lack of real commitment to renewables.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on photonics and quantum, I am pleased to see a continued focus on quantum technologies. The creation of the quantum hubs in 2014, to which the Secretary of State referred, enabled the UK to place itself at the centre of this technology, and a number of Scottish universities—notably, Glasgow, Strathclyde, Edinburgh and Heriot-Watt—played a key role. But the sector requires sustained support and proper vision.
I was recently made aware of an ambitious proposal made by a group at Glasgow University, in collaboration with universities across the UK, to secure commercial leadership in the manufacturing of quantum hardware, which is crucial for its penetration into volume applications. A national institute for quantum integration would deliver nano-fabrication facilities for the integration of this hardware. The Secretary of State said, in her statement two weeks ago on the science and technology framework, that she will have
“a ruthlessly outcome-focused approach to this new Department.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 182.]
I would love to hear her thoughts on a national institute for quantum integration absolutely focused on outcomes.
With quantum, as with other technologies that are critical to national security, the issue is rarely starting up; it is almost always scaling up. There does not seem to be much commitment at all to supporting the scaling up of small and medium-sized enterprises. To scale up, some companies will potentially need to move out, which means that some are looking to other places around the world in order to develop their technologies. Of course, we are still waiting for the semiconductor strategy, something that would support the development of quantum, photonics and the wider technology sectors. Perhaps the Secretary of State will prioritise that.
It was disappointing to hear, yet again, that investment in carbon capture and storage is not coming to the Scottish Acorn project. We need such clusters across the UK, in every part of it. The Acorn project is perfectly situated and the proposals are mature enough to merit Government funding; this should not be a phase 2, with something in the future, perhaps, if we are lucky.
Carol Monaghan
That would be substantial if it were coming to Scotland, so when will we see action on the Scottish cluster?
The Chancellor also made a song and dance last week about R&D tax credits. That system has been grossly mismanaged and therefore abused in the past. I would like more detail on how the new system will provide more value for money for both taxpayers and genuine researchers. How will it be managed? What checks and balances will be taking place? We need to make sure, once again, that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.
The ambitions of the Secretary of State, and indeed the Prime Minister, in science are laudable. However, they fail to mention the key issue: the people. That issue cannot be solved by cash alone. Supposed commitments to science clash entirely with this Government’s hostile environment on immigration, and the lack of progress on association to Horizon is having a huge impact. While the Secretary of State dithers about whether association represents value for money, researchers are leaving the UK for better opportunities abroad, where they can develop rich collaborations and enjoy freedom of movement.
In response to last week’s Budget, Sir Adrian Smith, president of the Royal Society, said:
“After a prolonged period of uncertainty, the Government urgently needs to deliver on its pledge to associate to Horizon Europe, and set out a longer-term, cross-party plan for science. This is vital to restore confidence among global research talent and investors that they should build their futures in the UK.”
Stephen Phipson, the head of Make UK, said that Horizon had
“always been one of those areas of the EU budget where the UK gets more out than it puts in”.
A number of other notable organisations in the UK —including the CBI, the British Heart Foundation, the Russell Group, the University Alliance and Cancer Research UK—and in EU R&D sectors have signed a joint statement to the UK Government, urging rapid progress on association to EU programmes, including Horizon Europe, Copernicus and Euratom.
However, there were worrying reports last week that the Prime Minister is unconvinced on Horizon, with the Financial Times reporting that “senior colleagues” said the Prime Minister was “sceptical” about the value of Horizon Europe and the cost of participation. Researchers need to know where the UK is headed. Is the dithering on Horizon a deliberate attempt to kick the can down the road? More than anything, Horizon is about people; there is no monetary replacement for this. So will this Government keep blaming the EU while projects and collaborations are lost?
However, there are areas where money is important and where I would have wanted to see action in the Budget. We heard from the Secretary of State about financially stable families. Let us assume that I am a quantum researcher from somewhere in the EU, I am at the top of my field and I have an invitation to join a team at one of the UK quantum hubs. I will, first, have to apply for my global talent visa, at a cost of £623, and that will also cost me £623 for my spouse and for each of my children. I have two children under 18, so my costs are now £2,492. I have to pay the annual health surcharge for myself, my spouse and my children, so that is £624 for myself and my spouse. There is great news, as children get a discount and so it is only £470 for each of them. We are now at £4,680 for me to come here under the global talent scheme, although that assumes that I have only two children—I know the Government like to pretend that people do not have any more than two children, but many of us do.
As an EU researcher, I have many options, so why would I put myself through the hassle of such an immigration regime? That is hardly how we attract the brightest and best. If the Government are serious about science, those fees have to be dropped. It would not be costly and it would have great benefits.